Last week we went to Washington, D.C. to assist CrownRights.org with filming on the upcoming Babies Are Murdered Here documentary. Our goal was to gather interviews from participants in the March for Life. Frankly, it was stunning to see the crowd of more than 500,000 people marching on the National Mall to protest abortion. The march is organized mainly by Roman Catholics. It is quite a testimony to the organizational ability of the Roman Catholics and the March for Life that they are able to mobilize this many people on one day (one c-c-c-old day) in DC.

This has been the story of the pro-life movement from the beginning. The Roman Catholics have mobilized and the evangelicalProtestant church has either hemmed and hawed or they have supported abortion (in the case of the mainline denominations). Forty years later churches in the evangelical community which are sound theologically (and many that aren’t) are loathe to do very much about the slaughter of the innocents in the womb. Why? The “elephant in the room”, whenever the topic is discussed, is the Catholic church. If we stand with Catholics in front of the abortion clinics, aren’t we somehow supporting their doctrine? In good churches, doctrine matters.

After seeing the March for Life, conducting interviews, and our own experience with pro-life Catholics I can only conclude that while we can stand in front of clinics while Catholics are present, we cannot join hands with them intentionally for the purpose of: 1) proclaiming the truth about abortion or 2) doing sidewalk counseling ministry. The theological tension between the Catholic church and the leadership of the pro-life movement effectively neuters the pro-life cause. Worse, it offers no real hope to women who have had abortions.

At this point, Catholics reading this blog will get up in arms and point to their long record of standing against abortion. I am grateful for their willingness to act when so many of us have been silent. It is to our shame. Some will say that this kind of message will fragment the pro-life community, weakening it. I disagree. The way that truth works in the Kingdom of God is that it sets people free. Besides that, the pro-life community is already fragmented. It is fragmented into groups that call abortion murder in no uncertain terms and those that equivocate.

Two Important Questions

At the March, we asked the participants two important questions. 1) Is abortion murder? 2) Is a woman who has an abortion a murderer? The answers were not what we expected at a pro-life event.

To question #1, the results were split. Some would say, yes, it is murder and not bat an eye. Others would hem and haw a bit and use just about every euphemism you can imagine to describe what a woman does when she has an abortion. To question #2, the results were much more uniform. I do not believe we had one person respond in the affirmative. In every case, the woman having an abortion was portrayed as a victim.

Watch the video below and see some of the responses that will appear in the film.

We did a lot more filming that day, but on the way to dinner we began talking about the disconnect. Why could some say it was murder and then not call the woman having an abortion a murderer? This isn’t a great leap of logic. Further, how could you be anti-abortion, march against Roe v. Wade, and then not be clear about abortion being murder in question #1?

As we chatted, Marcus finally asked, “What do Catholics believe about mortal sin?” This question and its answer is the keystone to not only this disconnect between the two questions, it is the keystone to understanding the present pro life movement and how ministry is done amongst women who are potentially abortive.

Mortal Sin

Let’s answer Marcus’ question. What do Catholics believe about mortal sin? In order to find the answer, you have to go to their documents. You do not go to writings which are not formally endorsed. You do not go to a Catholic friend or relative to find the answer. For our purposes, we will use the Catechism of the Catholic Church (hereafter referred to as the CCC) which was published by the Libreria Editrice Vaticana (the publishing arm of the Vatican). The copy in my library is the Second Edition published in 2000 and appears to be the 7th printing of this edition.

In the CCC, (section 1855) it states, “Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.” In contrast, venial sin “…allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.”

The big question is, “What is a mortal sin?” According to the Roman Catholic church it must meet three conditions: 1) it is a grave matter, 2) it is committed with full knowledge and 3) it is committed with deliberate intent (Section 1857). Murder falls under the “grave matter” condition according to section 1858. I submit that murder is always committed with full knowledge of its evil since Romans 2:14-15 says that the law of God is written on the hearts of all men and their conscience bears witness that this is so. Finally, murder is committed with deliberate intent whenever it is committed except in cases of self defense (Ex. 22:2-3). The CCC states, “Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest” (Section 1860). Note the use of the terminology “grave” and “gravest.” In the Roman Catholic understanding, a mortal sin is worse than the average sin.

What is the penalty for a mortal sin? The CCC answers, “If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of Hell…”.

Therefore murder is a mortal sin and is deserving of Hell. This is the clear teaching of the CCC.

The next question for the CCC is, “Is abortion murder?” The CCC answers in the affirmative. It states, “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable” (Section 2271). The same section goes on to cite the Didache and other early writings as proof. In the next section, it states, “Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life” (Section 2272).

So what’s the problem? Abortion is murder and murder merits Hell in Roman Catholic theology. Why don’t Roman Catholics speak more plainly on the issue of abortion if this is all that there is to it?

Theological Loophole

It suggests the question, “Is there a theological loophole in the CCC which allows a Roman Catholic the freedom to sidestep the question, “Is a woman who has an abortion a murderer?” It turns out that there is.

Section 1860 reads, “Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders.” It is worth noting that in this section, there are no footnotes. There are no cross references to Biblical passages because the Bible does not teach this.

So here is what is happening. In the pro-life movement, if you can deem the woman who has an abortion to be “unintentionally ignorant” or a victim of their own “feelings and passions”, you can conclude that she is indeed a victim, not guilty of mortal sin, and is therefore not a murderer. This is the only theological rationale that makes sense in light of the answers we received in DC at the March for Life. This victim mentality is evident at a March for Life. The vast majority of signs, usually provided by the Catholic organizers, emphasize a positive message. Their own website states, “Purposefully, the Life Principles are not framed in the negative tone of “thou shalt not,” and are framed in the positive tone of duty and responsibility of each human being and of society.” The signs at the march which state that abortion is murder are usually made by individuals and not mass produced and handed out to marchers.

The problem is that the Bible teaches the exact opposite. We cannot plead temporary insanity regarding our sin. In Exodus 21:22-25, the situation of two men fighting in a heated emotional argument is given. If in the course of their fight, they hurt a woman who is with child unintentionally and the baby miscarries, the death penalty is given for the man who is guilty, in spite of his emotion. It is eye for eye, tooth for tooth and life for life. In the context, it does not appear that it is their intent to murder the baby in the womb. If they do, intentional or not, they are given the death penalty.

In short, Roman Catholics who are pro-life who will not call abortion murder or women who abort, murderers are NOT in conflict with their own catechism. They ARE in conflict with the Word of God. By the way, so are evangelicals who adopt this same victim mentality of the woman at the abortion clinic.

The Law

Listen, if we ever have the opportunity to repeal Roe v. Wade and abortion is illegal in this nation, then what will a woman be guilty of if she has an abortion after that point? She will be guilty of murder. I am quite sure that lawyers will plead mental duress or temporary insanity, but the charge will be murder. The law will be right to say so. Marching at the March for Life and stopping in front of the Supreme Court to protest Roe v. Wade while equivocating on abortion being murder is a contradiction in the same act of protest. It doesn’t make any sense logically and even less sense theologically.

The Gospel

I’m not Catholic. I believe in sola Scriptura, the Reformation doctrine of Scripture alone as the rule of faith and practice. The CCC carries no weight in my theological thinking. The Bible defines sin as transgression (rebellion) against God’s Law (1 John 3:4). It does not distinguish between mortal and venial sin. All sin condemns people to Hell: murdering and disobedience to parents all fall under the scope of God’s law. There is no free pass for being emotionally traumatized when you commit it.

Therefore, with this right view of sin we’re all in the same boat. We are also dealing with an extremely urgent situation at an abortion clinic. Carrying this truth to the abortion clinics, I can minister to women going in AND coming out of the clinics without internal conflict. I can say, “Please don’t murder your baby” and “You can be forgiven if you repent and believe the gospel” because I too am a sinner who has sinned grievously before God. I can talk about the gospel without referring her to the priest for the sacrament of penance (which includes confession to a priest and whatever reparation he prescribes) or requiring them to become Catholic. These things are not the gospel. They forgive no sins. What I have to offer is the righteousness of Jesus Christ credited to them in place of their sin via repentance and faith (2 Corinthians 5:21). I can tell them that Jesus Christ has satisfied God’s wrath against them and we can be declared innocent on the basis of true repentance and trust in Him, not the sacraments.

All sin is mortal sin. All of it. It’s not just the “really really bad” people who deserve Hell. We are all really really bad: totally depraved (Romans 3:10-18). If you consider murder to be a worse sin than the average venial sin (or skate around it altogether) you’re not going to refer to abortion as murder or the woman as a murderer. What matters in most pro-life counseling ministry is the life of the baby and if you have to lie to get a save, then so be it. I want to see the baby saved AND the woman who was planning on murdering it saved from Hell. This requires plain speaking.

If you deny total depravity and want to see Roe v. Wade overturned you win support by following the cultural trend of soft-selling sin. Yet we all know that abortion is murder. It’s self evident to anyone who doesn’t have an agenda. Our nation will not repent of a choice. No one will. It might repent over a sin. If the March for Life was a call to this nation to repent, it tried to do so without naming the sin we’re guilty of, just as it does not use the word “murder” on their website.

The Victim Lie

This may seem harsh to those who have been trained to do Crisis Pregnancy Center ministry by Roman Catholic activists, but if you have spent any time outside of an abortion clinic pleading with the women going in to save the life of their baby, you know that these women are not victims. They may be very emotional but they are not deceived by their emotions. They are murderers and in most cases, they act like it. They cuss you out, they spit at you, they threaten you and in some cases they attack you. The men who sometimes have the guts to bring them are just the same. When they come out of the clinic they often joke about having just murdered their baby. Abortion is murder. Period. No equivocation, no compromise.

To my evangelical friends who either are doing abortion clinic ministry or plan on it: you do not help a woman find forgiveness in Christ by soft-selling what she is doing at the clinic. Biblical repentance includes an acknowledgement of the sin: they will call it what God calls it. When women justify their actions based on circumstances or emotions you are not looking at Biblical repentance. You might be able to talk them out of the abortion by sympathizing with them, but until they admit that what they were planning on doing was premeditated murder there is no repentance. Biblical repentance looks like Psalm 51 and not a session with a psychologist.

If you have been doing pro-life ministry with Roman Catholics and have adopted their victim mentality of the women who are having abortions, you need to repent. Open your eyes to the behavior that you are seeing and call it what God calls it: murder. Only then will you have the ability to offer real forgiveness and hope to those whose lives have been wrecked by their decision to murder their child in the womb.

Jon Speed & Marcus Pittman

Don’t enter into the voting booth tomorrow without first listening to Jon Speed’s sermon “Rock the Vote – Vote Biblically” It’s available on Sermon Audio. Or you can just click here, or the image above.

Proverbs 29:18
“Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.”

The other day I was privileged to listen to Gary North pitch some ideas for an upcoming project Crown Rights is working on. If anyone knows anything about Gary North, he’s a man whose written millions of words, all in a manner that’s easily tweetable. So in the midst of our conversation and charming one liner tweetables like; “Show me a Church that engages in the sacraments every quarter, and I’ll show you a Church that lacks discipline”. He said the following – which quickly had me launching my twitter app -

“Any Christian who who get’s involved in politics is functionally a post-millenialist. No one gets involved in politics to lose.”

But this week, as the early voter status updates started to hit my Facebook wall, I noticed many Christian brothers and sisters who have long been staunchly pro-life, start to flaunt their support of Romney. A man who spends money on advertisements proudly proclaiming his support of murdering those babies conceived in rape and inscest.

It made me stop.

Wait a minute? Your supporting this guy? What happened to the give me life, or give me death attitude of no surrender you used to have? Why the compromise?

That’s when it hit me….

Dispensationalism has invaded politics and what Gary North said is partly true, no one gets involved in politics to lose, but thanks to the ‘end is near’ worldview of dispensationalism, people do however, get involved in politics to hold back the inevitably collapsing dam.

When an individual gets involved in politics while holding on tightly to a worldview that says everything is going to hell and everything is collapsing, they enter the ring already presupposing that defeat is right around the corner. All one can do at this point is hold back the inevitable doom that is to come.

This is why Scripture says “Without vision the people perish, but happy is he who keeps the Law.”

Perhaps that’s why after many years of fighting, after many years of standing outside of abortion clinics, pleading for the lives of the unborn, many Christian men and woman have embraced Mitt Romney and in so doing dammed the pro-life momentum.

You’ve heard the argument before before I am certain….

“It’s better to vote for the guy who only favors abortion 10% of the time, then it is to support the guy who favors it 100% of the time.”

I mean correct me if I’m wrong; but out of 1.5 million butchered and vacuumed children a year, the guy who only wants 150 thousand butchered and sucked out of the womb does seem like a lesser evil, right?

The truth is that voting for a guy, who because of his false church, supports the massacre of only 150 thousand babies a year can only be acceptable if there is no possible way for abortion to ever be done away with according to your worldview. If abortion will only wax on for the worse, and will never wax off for the better, voting for the guy who supports the minor massacre seems like a great deal because lets face it, abortion is here to stay and there is no possible ‘vision’ of victory in sight. The next election we might not be so lucky, after all the Bible says so; doesn’t it?

But ultimately, and thankfully, such an attitude of defeatism is not found anywhere within the pages of Scripture.

Instead, Scripture states the opposite. That right now, Christ is King, He is seated in heaven with all power and authority, making his Enemies his footstool – 1 Corinthians 15 – and the nations, His disciples – Matthew 28.

That’s the worldview that demands no compromise. That’s the vision that causes Christians to storm the gates of Hell for the sake of keeping God’s law and that’s the worldview that won’t set back the pro-life cause years for the sake of one election.

When we share the vision and confidence of scripture that the Gospel is actively – on earth and in time – destroying evil and casting down every high thing, why on earth would we compromise in keeping Gods law?

The truth is, if you believed that, you wouldn’t.

The documentary 2016, narrated and written by Dinesh D’Souza and produced by Gerald R. Molen (producer of Schindler’s List) is making the circuits in the theaters for the pre-election season.   It finally came to Syracuse, so my wife and I went to go see it last night.  The movie is the film version of D’Souza’s 2010 book, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage”.  D’Souza, a former policy analyst in Reagan’s administration and graduate of Dartmouth College, is currently president of King’s College in New York City.  In short, this is not Michael Moore doing the conservative version of Fahrenheit 911.  D’Souza is a respected author, scholar, administrator and policy maker.

The movie is respectable and academic in its approach.  D’Souza has clearly done his homework.  The premise is well known: President Obama can be best understood as an anti-colonialist.  His biological father was a Kenyan anti-colonialist, his father’s friends were anti-colonialist, his mother was anti-colonialist, and his mentors were all anti-colonialist.  Some in the Tea Party try to understand Obama as a closet Muslim and his anti-colonial presuppositions might easily feed that stereotype.  However, D’Souza’s thesis seems to be accurate.  Obama’s decision to return the bust of Winston Churchill to Great Britain when he became president suddenly makes a lot more sense.

I found the cinematography to be poor with some of the graphic work looking like an attempt to make D’Souza look like a cool, funny and interesting guy.  There’s no need in a documentary to try to win friends and influence people with goofy graphics and weird b-roll footage of D’Souza doing some touristy group Hawaiian hula dancing in order to establish credibility.  If anything, this kind of stuff has the exact opposite effect in the context of a film like this one.  Now if there was some nifty footage of Obama in a grass skirt, that would be another story.  I think we’d all enjoy that.

The middle portion of the movie drags along.  The guy in front of me fell asleep and I nearly followed his lead.  By that time, Obama’s anti-colonialism was pretty well established and I found myself waiting for that dead horse to be left alone and wondering what would come next.  If conservative Republicans want to convince anyone they have to communicate crisply.  Otherwise the effect is reminiscent of Charlie Brown’s teacher in the old TV renditions of the cartoon.

The punch line of the film was meant to be what America will look like in 2016 if Obama is re-elected.  This portion of the film may have covered a grand total of two or three minutes.  But the real punch line is the idea that if Obama gets what he wants in a second term, there will be a United States of Islam stretching across the Middle East .  D’Souza extrapolates this from his success on some previous educated guesses regarding specific policy moves by Obama.  Is it possible? Anything is possible.  Should we hit the “panic button”?  No.  More on that in a moment.

As a Christian who is learning to practice a consistent Biblical worldview, there are elements of what Obama believes that are disturbing, elements of what he believes that ought to make us stop and think, and elements of what D’Souza is putting forward that miss the point altogether.

What We Ought to be Concerned About:

One main feature of anti-colonialism wherever it is found, is the idea that the Christian missionary enterprise is somehow in bed with politicians in order to secretly spread western civilization.  Every plausible lie has an element of truth to it.  In some cases, missionaries have unwittingly spread their culture by simply being American or British or what-have-you in a different culture.  As people convert to Christianity, the converts equate the culture of the messenger with the culture of the Kingdom of God, and impersonate what they see.  In some unfortunate cases, the missionaries purposely teach that western civilization is sanctification and it is from these misguided souls that the anti-colonialists get their ammunition.  I know of one missionary in the former Soviet Union who teaches his converts English so that they can read the 1611 King James Version of the Bible.  I am sure that this missionary is sincere, but teaching people English so that they can read the Bible in the “inspired language” of seventeenth century English is foolish and begging for a colonial interpretation.

Yet this is patently untrue as a whole.  The primary reason why Christians evangelize and do missionary work is not political; at least not in a “of this world” sense.  We take the gospel to the nations because God is moving all of history towards a close when His redeemed from all nations will worship around His throne (Revelation 7:9-12).  While anti-colonialism serves its purpose well, those who hold to the ideology ought to have the intellectual integrity to admit to the real motivations behind the missionary effort, even if they disagree with the message of Christianity.

Anti-colonialism is a political philosophy.  It is a tool that can be used to not only inspire effigy burnings, but the martyrdom of sincere missionaries.  Any time an American president gets offended at the freedom of religion (which would include the freedom of adherents to proselytize) we ought to be a little bit nervous.  We might also ask where is Obama’s concern for the Islamic colonization that we are seeing in places like the United Kingdom, Australia, and Dearborn, Michigan?  Is it possible that Obama is really against only certain brands of colonialism?

What We Need to Think About:

Our role as believers is not to spread the good news of the United States of America.  Reagan caught some heat in his day for making the United States out to be a “city on a hill.”  The United States is not the Kingdom of God, but to hear some tell it in the Tea Party camp, it is.  The Kingdom of God will subdue all kingdoms one day, including the USA (read the Book of Daniel).  Perhaps one reason why some interpret evangelicals as being colonizers is their blind allegiance to a political party which has been too quick on the trigger to send our troops out to every corner of the world to “protect our interests.”  The evangelical tendency to wrap ourselves in the American flag misses the obvious fact that the Lord’s Kingdom is made up of all nations.  Whether we want to admit it or not we have probably helped create the political philosophy that helped create Obama.

The Point D’Souza Missed:

D’Souza’s fear mongering regarding a potential United States of Islam misses an obvious point.  God is Sovereign.  Don’t go to this movie expecting to hear much of anything from a Christian perspective.  The gospel, and for that matter—a Sovereign God—are not presupposed in this movie.  In fact, what we have here is humanism.  The savior of our civilization will be the American voter.  If we choose well, we might have a chance.  If we do not, we are doomed.   This will play well to the Republican party and the “anyone but Obama” crowd.  It does not play well amongst principled voters.

For a man who wrote a book called, “What’s So Great About Christianity?”, Christianity does not show up as a blip on the radar in this film.   Point of fact: God is Sovereign.  Christians should vote for principles and not panic.  We should not buy the lie that all of civilization hinges on this election, which is what Romney and company would have us believe.  If evangelicals voted principle above pragmatism we would begin to think long term by voting for third party candidates in spite of their not being “electable.”

In the worst case scenario, the United States becomes a third world nation.  Our hope is not the United States.  It is Jesus Christ and we are part of His Kingdom.  If our nation collapses, we can rebuild it using Biblical principles of government and not humanism.  This is one of many things that are truly great about Christianity.  The gospel has something to say to governments.  Whether or not they, or the governed, listen is another issue.

Jon Speed is the Pastor of Christ is King Baptist Church and the dean of The Log College.

The Christian community is scrambling over themselves to publish articles and blog posts encouraging us to vote for the ‘conservative’ choice, Mitt Romney.  (See Here, Here, Here, and Here.) Leaving aside the fact that by any historical definition Romney is not a “conservative”, or why we would want to ‘conserve’ any aspect of the political environment today, there is rarely any commentary related to more fundamental questions.  Instead, appealing to the lowest common denominator, the strategy can essentially be summed up with one statement; ‘anyone but Obama’.

While it is true that many Christians have avoided altogether any discussion over Romney’s profession of faith in a false god, yet the objections to Romney, as a Mormon, are overturned or dismissed via a historical answer that has been used before in past candidates; namely that Obama is much worse.  No doubt this statement is true, but the political environment of the moment does not set our standard for leadership, God does. Why do we look to Scripture for our standard of leadership both in home and church but leave civil government to pragmatics and compromise?  Said another way, we eagerly support candidates for political office that would be easily dismissed and disqualified in other institutions.  Is the State and it’s officeholders suddenly beyond Christian reproach?  The incremental approach to curbing evil, as is often cited as a reason to vote for less-than-ideal candidates, has actually worked against Christians for many years.  Instead of a candidate representing a broad range of Christian opinions, we are now asked to support a man who is not a Christian at all.  In our eagerness to throw Obama out of office, we are now willing to cast our vote for a Baal worshipper as our political leader.

Below are three reasons why I cannot, in good conscience, vote for Mitt Romney:

1. There is a big difference between God using wicked pagan rulers for His purposes and God’s people ‘asking’ for one by casting their vote for a known pagan, anti-Christ worshipper. The prophet Habakkuk was incredulous at the thought of God using the Babylonians to punish them but it appears in the case of America, we are self-consciously asking God for Babylon to rule over us. The only place we find Israel asking for a king is in their disobedience and lack of faith by wanting to be ‘like the other nations’. Peace and freedom are by-products of obedience, faithfulness, and repentance, and these will not be accomplished by asking God to give us Cyrus over Nebuchadnezzar.

2. There is no biblical mandate that commands us to ‘cast our vote’ for someone. In other words, to not vote is not to disobey. Civic duty perhaps, can be called into question but I am more interested in Biblical Truth than national ‘obligation’.  Writing in candidates or withholding their votes are both viable options for Christians. It is God who sets rulers on their thrones and it is man’s duty to be faithful to His Word.

3. Getting the ‘lesser of two evils’ elected at the federal level is a short sighted and pragmatic goal, as if voting for any form of evil is acceptable at election time.  Our goal as Christians should be to disciple the next generation on what godly civil government looks like. If that means not voting at the federal level for several elections, then so be it. We don’t have to achieve ‘victory’ in our lifetime; we are called to be faithful. Today’s governors and mayors are tomorrow’s presidents; we should focus our efforts on raising a generation of Christian statesmen at local levels and hope for political revival in the generations to come. As for the immediate future, as much as I would never wish or pray for persecution in this nation, if the Church is strengthened and our dross removed, to God be the Glory.

I would challenge Christians to define the ‘line’ at which any given Republican candidate would be unqualified for office. Is their abortion stance the only litmus test to earn their vote? God tells us that false weights and unjust scales are an abomination as well. If Christians demanded more from their candidates and withheld their votes from those that do not seek to uphold righteousness according to God’s law, the bar would be raised and the doors opened for true Christian statesmen to take office.

 Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people – Proverbs 14:34 (ESV)

Written by Jason Cunningham who is an Elder of Chestnut Mountain Presbyterian Church and currently serving on CrownRights.org’s board of directors. 

A Christian’s first and final authority in all areas of life is to be the Holy Bible. Jesus Christ is the great Judge, Lawgiver, and King (Isaiah 33:22), Governor among the nations (Psalm 22:28), Ruler of the kings of the earth (Revelation 1:5). In light of these verses Christians must hate what he hates, and love what he loves. They must exhibit, as closely as possible the character of our Triune God. One of the perfections of God is his holiness. His holiness demands hatred and wrath against sin, which is anything against his character. Because God hates sin he unreservedly discriminates against it, he is absolutely intolerant of it and commands His children, who love him, to do the same.

Ye that love the LORD, HATE evil (Psalm 97:10).

These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that devises wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren (Proverbs 6:16-19).

Jesus approves of the hatred the church of Ephesus has for the deeds of the Nicolaitanes. He tells them that he also hates their evil behavior (Revelation 2:6).

So according to scripture, intolerance, discrimination and hate, are not in themselves bad things. Discrimination against behavior that involves theft, murder, perjury, libel, rape, homosexuality, pedophilia, vandalism, etc. is a good thing. It can although become sinful if the object of that hatred or discrimination is not something that God condemns as evil in the Bible. The Bible says “be angry and sin not (Ephesians 4:26).” Since God alone, in the Bible, distinguishes right from wrong and defines crime and punishment, we as Christians must follow the same definitions. If Christ’s definitions of good and evil are not boldly and wisely applied to our culture then humanism will gladly come in and influence every area of society and call good, evil and evil good. And that is what is happening today. Christians must again be vehement and determined in their discrimination against evil behavior. They must be open in acknowledging God’s hatred of specific sins and live in a way that pleases God even if we offend the ungodly. Christians must study the Word of God diligently to know what is right and wrong. Once they are confident of what the Law of God condemns or approves of, no more will they back down or be put to silence when the neutralizing statements of the anti-Christians come their way.

“Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it (Psalm 127:1).”
Rob Baird, is a husband, father and street evangelist in Richmond, VA.

Geeking out like the true space fan boy that I am, as I write this, I have NASA TV streaming live from my second monitor.  At 1:30am Eastern, Lord willing, yes, Lord willing, NASA’s Curiosity Mars Rover will land safely on the Martian surface. But this is no ordinary intergalactic space rover (as if any planetary rovers are ordinary). Curiosity is nuclear powered, contains a complete on board chemistry lab, and is the size of a one ton car!

The mission of curiosity is no secret. It’s on the front page of NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory website, “To see if Mars ever had the right conditions to support life.”

Like most of NASA’s missions it’s very purpose is humanist to the core. Curiosity is purposed to attempt to explain how life got here apart from God. NASA, how have these missions been working out for you?

Christians are very quick to abandon areas the humanist have embraced. There is no question that the humanist have taken dominion over science. The result of that has had a disastrous effect on civilization, damaging everything from education to medicine. Instead of Christians putting their foot down when it came to stopping the humanist advancement, Christians did what they do best, retreat and rebrand. Instead of being scientists, were now simply just “creation scientists” and instead of Christians leading the way in all scientific advancements, as they did in times past, the humanist are taking all the credit for scientific discoveries, that are meant to give Glory to the Creator.

However, there is something about space the humanist have not been able to completely claim. From the Apollo 8 astronauts who read Genesis Chapter 1 from space, to Jeff Williams, taking a John MacArthur Study Bible on board the Atlantis Space Shuttle, it seems as if the heavens are still declaring glory of God in spite of massive humanist space programs.

In fact I would argue that of all the ridiculously expensive, and unconstitutional Government programs, none has done more good for the Glory of God then NASA.

Scripture doesn’t need science to prove that it is true.  Creation never teaches us things about God that oppose Scripture. However, creation does broaden our understanding of what Scripture has already confirmed.

Think about how much our understanding of Scripture has been impacted ever since NASA started sending people and things into space. We know how big the universe is that God measures with his hands. How small and seemingly insignificant humanity is that he died to save. We know that God’s creation is glorious, beautiful and complex. We know how intricately and precisely fine tuned our solar system is for life and we know how rare and valuable life is. We also know how perfectly placed the earth is within our universe for scientific discovery.

And all of these things we have learned about God were a direct result of billions of dollars being spent to prove He doesn’t exist. NASA only continues to prove that scripture is the ultimate proof of God.

Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens? Isaiah 40:12

EDIT @ 1:51AM: The Curiosity has landed. This thought went through my head shortly after the news…Before the death of Christ, Ever since the tower of Babel, God wouldn’t let us translate languages…now he allows us to visit other planets. The Gospel changes everything.  

Recently, John MacArthur, a man whom I have great respect for released a blog titled “Beer, Bohemianism, and True Christian Liberty” aimed at the “Young, Restless and Reformed” (YRR) warning them about being associated with alcohol or using it in their church services. It pretty much caused the blogosphere to collapse on itself. As for myself, I wasn’t even aware of the blog until several people alerted me to it.

I would not fit into the category of Young Restless and Reformed, I am not charismatic, not a fan of anyone having tattoos, I despise MMA, and can’t stand trying to appeal to the world to grow our churches. Most importantly I was forced to give up my hip, trendy and relevant YRR badge as soon as I open air preached in public. However, based on my tweets, statuses and Facebook messages of the past addressing the issue of alcohol and the church I have become the “go to guy” within my small social network community when people have a question in regards to Christians and alcohol, whether I want to be characterized by that or not.

Being lazy and not wanting to take the time to really do an elaborate post on the subject I made the mistake of making a pretty sharp tweet calling MacArthur’s post “horrific” and refuting the tweet by saying “Jesus drank wine, your argument is invalid.”

I am not sure if “horrific” was the best use of words for an elder. Not to mention the response was lazy. It didn’t help that I then tried to avoid a long blog post by making a reductio ad absurdum of his post by replacing every reference to alcohol or beer with “Krispy Kreme and Potlucks.” Although very effective at demonstrating the absurdity of his presupposition if alcohol is not a sin, it didn’t really leave a proper explanation of my position and it’s relation to the Gospel.

What followed was a series of tweets, Facebook debates, phone calls and e-mails that left me exhausted and doing far more work defending the position then if I had taken the time to respond rightly.

I decided to take a break from the social media sphere for a while, not as way to avoid the conversation, but mainly to inspect my own heart and attitude towards brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree on this issue.

But with that being said, and with some encouragement from my friends who believe the centrality of this issue is not being addressed by either side. I felt I needed to respond in more detail. There is no easy way to discuss this issue and as I write this I have no idea how long this post will be. But let’s sit back, and first and foremost clarify some things.

I do still stand by my argument. Alcohol is a symbol of our freedom from sin as demonstrated by Christ.

In MacArthur’s post he said:

“Contrary to the current mythology, abstinence is no sin—least of all for someone devoted to ministry (Leviticus 10:9; Proverbs 31:4; Luke 1:15). It is, of course, a sin to give one’s mind over to the influence of alcohol or to bedrock one’s reputation with deliberate symbols of debauchery.” (GTY.org)

If MacArthur believes that alcohol is not a sin, then why define it as a symbol of debauchery? Is that the image of alcohol that God gives us in Scripture? Does John MacArthur take this same stance towards sex?

John MacArthur is a very wise man, one who knows the Bible far better than me, and because of his amazing knowledge of Scripture he is forced to say that drinking alcohol is not a sin. However, as the quote above proves he believes drinking is no sin, while creating a system that presupposes that it is a sin.

This presupposition that alcohol is sinful forces MacArthur to literally water down Jesus’ first miracle. In a previous discussion on alcohol posted on YouTube, MacArthur says that:

“You’d have to drink an awful large volume of that diluted, fermented wine to become drunk. In the ancient world, the dilution of wine was distinguished from strong drink which was not diluted and that did lead to drunkenness. Having said that; Jesus creating wine, and I assume that he did, was fresh, brand new, unfermented, the best grape juice, the purest that anyone had ever tasted.”  – John MacArthur “Why Would Jesus Create Wine” (YouTube Video)

It’s interesting to note, that in this video John MacArthur references strong drink as the drink that leads to drunkenness, but ignores the fact that God commands Israel to partake in strong drink, the Hebrew word is “shekar”, in Deuteronomy 14:26

Because of our prohibition traditions, we are so afraid to simply state that Jesus drank alcoholic beverages with self control. Not only that; pastors can’t even discuss the topic without being labeled as an alcoholic or a lover of beer. As in this very blog, MacArthur warns pastors that:

“It is puerile and irresponsible for any pastor to encourage the recreational use of intoxicants—especially in church-sponsored activities.”

Is a wedding a Church activity? Is worship described in Deuteronomy 14:26 a Church activity? What about communion? According to MacArthur’s alcohol worldview, we must completely ignore alcohol, even eliminating it from a pastors discussion.

Lets be very clear on some things. First, discussing the topic of alcohol and the Scriptures does not make one a wino and it doesn’t even mean that the person who is pro-alcohol has made alcohol an idol. For some reason, those who oppose Christians drinking like to attack the content of ones character and ministry rather then addressing the issue from Scripture. I recently had a guy tell me that because of my few tweets and statuses expressing my position on alcohol, “I have ceased to make the main thing the main thing.”

This is quite simply untrue and any such accusation would have to be applied to John MacArthur for making these very blog posts on alcohol, as well as Jesus Christ himself who was called by his own words “a glutton and a drunkard” because of his association with those who eat and drink  (not to mention a certain miracle he performed.)

Just because one speaks and teaches on secondary issues does not discredit one from having a passion for the Gospel. The Gospel is not just a proclamation. The Gospel without application is no Gospel at all. Just a story. The Gospel without “works in keeping with repentance” is as James said…dead. I know us reformers don’t like to talk about Gospel and works in the same breath, but bare with me. I am not speaking of pre-regeneration works. I am speaking of the application of the Gospel on a believers life after he has been saved. Sanctification.

How does the Gospel change my view of my sin, my evangelism, my marriage, the raising of my kids and my career? This is the sanctifying work of the Gospel. In other words how does the Gospel (which is spiritual) affect my life (that which is physical). If the Gospel has no effect on the temporal realm then how can we expect to use Scripture to teach against abortion, homosexual marriage or abusive husbands?

More importantly in this instance, how does the Gospel application change a persons view of alcohol?

Before we can answer this, we must first understand the worlds view of alcohol.

There is no question that the world loves alcohol. They abuse it. They use it outside of it’s God-given restraints, for their own selfish ends. They devour it to such a degree that they ruin their lives and the lives of others over it. Wrecking families and harming children.

But the same is true for sex.

The world loves sex. They abuse it. They use it outside of it’s God-given restraints, for their own selfish ends. They abuse it to such a degree that they ruin their lives and the lives of others over it. Wrecking families and harming children.

Both sex and alcohol are gifts from God and make no mistake about it the world doesn’t abuse these things simply because their fun to abuse or enjoyable. They abuse these gifts of God, because they hate with the most venomous of disdain the one who gave these gifts to them and this is their chance to shake a fist at their creator and gift giver.

As we see with homosexuality and their perversion of sex, it’s not enough for the world to simply abuse God’s gifts. They need to redefine it. They need their abuse of the gift to influence the culture. It’s no longer enough to simply be a homosexual, homosexuals need to have special rights and everyone has to agree and support them or else. If they can redefine marriage, then they can remove God from it, reshape the cultures worldview and harden their conscience ever so slightly.

This is why we as Christians cannot allow the wickedness of the world to define our view of alcohol. They have no right. They have no authority, but most of all any definition we allow the world to give will be a blasphemy against God in an all out attempt to suppress his truth.

The same reason we do not allow the world to define “marriage” is the exact same reason we do not allow the world to define the proper use of alcohol. For Christians to not speak up on the proper use of God’s gift on alcohol is just as much a sin as Christians who seek to allow the Government to define marriage.

We don’t need their definitions. Their definitions are blasphemous, and slander God and his Word which has already defined these issues for us.

Brothers and sisters whom I love, this is the truth I speak to you. My passion to defend alcohol is not rooted in my love of drunkenness, but my hatred of it. It’s not rooted in my apathy to the Gospel but my devotion to the Gospel. It is not rooted in my desire to be like the world, but my desire to transform the world for the Glory of Christ.

I want nothing more than for the church to take back the alcohol industry for the Glory to God that the world might look to the Bride of Christ for proper instruction on how to regulate His gifts.

This my friends is the dividing line. This is the difference.

Even though men hate God, God shows kindness by giving alcohol as a wonderful gift (Is 55:1), used to make glad the heart of men (Ps 104:14, 15), already approved by God for our use (Ecc 9:7), both in corporate worship (Deut 14:26), in fellowship and celebrations (John 2), to be a sign of God’s blessings (Is 25:6), which Jesus used as an instituter of the covenant demonstrating his blood that would save his people from his sins (Luke 22:20)

Jesus Christ, when he was with his disciples took that glass of wine and said “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”

Drunkard, this wine which so enslaved you is now a picture of your freedom in Christ.

What grace.

Contrast that glorious picture, with Phil Johnson on the radio, and Grace To You’s blog where alcohol was referred to by Christians as “a symbol of debauchery” a “controlled substance” and an agent of “bondage” not being a symbol or “purity” or “restraint.”

To reduce alcohol, a symbol of Christ and his work, to anything less may not result in using alcohol for debauchery, but it can be just an equally sinful display as it can lead to Gospel-less legalistic moralism.

No matter how much the world tries to tarnish gifts from God we cannot allow them to for the sake of His name and the Gospel. We must not let the world define terms and we must not accept the definitions they give.

I said in the beginning of this post, that I do not bear the title of Young Restless and Reformed because I despise trying to make church conform to the culture. I stand by that. However those who would stand with me in opposition to worldly worship are equally as guilty of making the church conform to the ideas of the world when they create laws in opposition to a Biblical worldview of alcohol, and in favor of the weaker brothers still pagan worldview. When you let the world define theology for the Church, you allow the Church to become worldly.

So perhaps your saying to yourself “But what about those genuine weaker brothers who struggle with drunkenness, how can we intertwine drinking alcohol publicly, in corporate worship and fellowship and not trample over their consciences?”

These my friends are valid questions! Debates worth having as we seek answers that can only be found within the pages of Scripture, and cannot be found within the perversions of the world.

…and now that you know that alcohol, when properly defined, is first and foremost a Gift from God, a symbol of the covenant, that gladden the heart of men, I would be more than happy to explain how Scripture reconciles the two…tomorrow.

Read Part Two Here

A Call to End Christian Prohibition

The issue of how to address the weaker brother is no small matter and it is not to be handled lightly. A brother’s or sister’s conscience is on the line and there is nothing funny about trampling over a weaker brother for one’s own selfish gain and amusement. There are many who have abused alcohol in the past, who have been bound by it’s sinful lure and I know that even today as I write this that there are still many Christians who constantly battle temptation with alcohol. I love my weaker brothers and I will do what I can to keep them from sin, both in stumbling and violating their conscience, but I also refuse to allow them to sin by twisting Scripture (knowingly or unknowingly) as a means to create a legalistic worldview.

But we have to ask the right questions and not insert our presuppositions about alcohol into the mix, which is why I decided to write the first petition so that we as a body could replace our traditional view of alcohol with a more Scriptural view – one that reflects what we see in Scripture.

As I stated previously, in Deuteronomy 14:26, God tells Israel that they are to:

“Spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household.”

Issues to emphasize from this passage:

• Both wine and strong drink (“shekar”) are listed.
• This is a public proclamation, to all the people of Israel to purchase whatever their appetite desires, even intoxicating drink.
• This is to be done with rejoicing.
• This is to be done before the Lord.

The questions that need to be asked by looking at this text are simple.

• Is drinking strong drink a sin?
• Is commanding people to eat whatever their appetite desires placing gluttons in danger of stumbling?
• Is publicly telling people to drink wine or strong drink a sin because it will cause someone to stumble?
• If it is a sin to do so, then how can the Lord issue a command knowing it will cause people to stumble?

These questions answer themselves, since to answer in the negative would damage the very character of God. It is only in light of these passages, as well as many other Scriptural passages of public drinking, that the issue of the weaker/stronger brother can be addressed.

In other words as we dive into this very sensitive subject, Scripture must interpret Scripture. Not our emotions, modern psychology, past history with alcohol, or other aspects outside of the text.

I use the text in Deuteronomy as the foundation for this before diving into Romans 14 because it uses the term “shekar,” or strong drink. No matter how one tries to make “wine” appear less alcoholic by jumping to extra-biblical theories of diluting wine, there is no getting around the command of God to purchase “strong drink” in the text. “Shekar,” in its original language, is defined as “intensely alcoholic” and is used several times in Scripture to warn against the sin of drunkenness (Proverbs 20:1, Isaiah 5:11), but it is also used in worship as described here in Deuteronomy, including its use as an offering unto the Lord (Numbers 28:7). This begs a number of questions: if alcohol was inherently sinful, or should not be drunk by Christians in public, why would God want it served and poured out as worship to him? Is God worshipped properly when “controlled substances” (which are regarded as symbols of the world and which have held so many in “bondage”) are used during public worship? If this can be considered proper worship, how can one be in “sin” before the Holy and just Lord, and “rejoice” at the same time?

Clearly, as Scripture tells us, it is the command of the King Himself to use alcohol in public worship to Him, not just in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament as well. Paul rebukes the Church of Corinth for intoxication at the communion meal, indicative of their unworthy participation. Clearly the wine used in Corinth and the churches of the New Testament was alcoholic.

But how is this possible? Surely throughout all of Scripture there must have been weaker brothers as well? Were they not present during communion? Did Jesus Christ place our weaker brothers in temptation by commanding the use of wine for his sacrament? Certainly not. To say so blasphemes the nature of God, who tempts no one.

A discussion on the weaker brother would not be complete without an examination of the primary text of Romans 14. Let’s take some time to look over that passage, starting with the first few verses that are often overlooked by the opposing positions.

Romans 14:1 – As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

The very first thing to note is that in the preceding chapter of Romans, Paul speaks about the importance of loving our fellow neighbor, and thus leads into Romans 14 to discuss how to handle those who are “weak in faith.” This matter is first and foremost an issue of loving those whom are weaker in the faith or new Christians, ones who do not understand fully their freedom and grace that is to be found in the Gospel. Because we love the weaker brother, we can never allow them to remain stagnate in the faith as a result of their own ignorance to what Scripture commands.

This text is not about going out of your way to bend to the desires of those who are older in their faith, and wrong in their reasoning, nor it is not about creating an entire system of church regulation built upon the weaker faith of another.

As the text says “He [the weaker brother] will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.” When discussing this text, John Calvin points out Philippians 1:6: “He who began in you a good work, will perform it to the end,” to show that the position of the weaker brother should be one that is temporary.

When speaking of the weaker brother, the Apostle Paul is speaking of newly converted Jews and Gentiles who were still bound to their traditions, (such as not eating meat sacrificed to idols) having not yet arrived to the proper conclusions regarding the cleanliness of foods.

We must not make the same mistake common among many Christians, which is to assume that the weaker brother has a more sensitive conscience. Within the context, the weaker brother is not an esteemed position, but rather is someone who is still holding on to traditions, who is still clinging to legalism and law, and who does not yet understand how to manage his freedoms under the Gospel. It is a cruel thing to allow one to stay in that position, and we can trust that the weaker brother will not remain as such, since the Lord, who is able to make him stand, will also keep him from falling.

In others words, as individuals, we are to temporarily make accommodations for our Christian brothers and sisters who are new to the faith as they grow in sanctification. If we go out to dinner with them, we abstain from ordering a drink, but if they come to our house we are not under any law to clear out the fridge as Paul says, “Let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats.”

Clearly this text is not saying that drinking is a sin, nor is it saying that eating is a sin. The context of this text is not even dealing with people who used to be gluttons and drunkards in their pre-regenerate state, or even people that abused the gifts of God! It is speaking of the opposite. It is speaking of those who, in the past, abstained from things that the Gospel now allows them to enjoy freely!

For example, the ex-homosexual who has now repented and saved is not to abstain from all sexual activity, instead he should desire (as we should desire for him) to be married, have children, and raise a godly generation!

Likewise, the ex-alcoholic should not desire to always be abstinent, but to instead desire to be restored to a maturity that allows him to drink alcohol, partake in communion, and enjoy God’s gift rightly!

But with as glorious of a picture of the Gospel as that is, the text does say that for the sake of the weaker brother, we ought to abstain when necessary so as not to violate his conscience.

“It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.”

But is this a permanent abstinence, and to what extent should an individual abstain? Should the church corporately submit to whatever yoke the weaker brother requests of it? Not at all.

I have many Christian friends who come to my house. They know my position on alcohol. Some evangelist come to my house for the weekend knowing my positions concerning alcohol and I, knowing theirs, abstain while they are in my home. Other Christian friends and evangelists come to my house to fellowship and enjoy a good beer as well as bring their own. I am not to love the brothers who do not drink any less than my brothers who do drink. The brothers who do not drink are not to love me any less nor are they to think less of me or question my devotion to the Gospel because I drink.

If a brother who does not drink comes to my house, should I empty my fridge? Would the site of seeing a beer cause him to run to the nearest ABC store and devour a bottle of Jack Daniels? Would I be responsible? Certainly not. If Jesus Christ can turn water into wine at a public celebration and not be charged with placing people into temptation, and can command people to purchase wine and strong drink to worship him, then certainly we can purchase beer in public, drink in public, and take part in teaching others to brew beer and make wine publicly.

Remember the text I started this post with? It described a public command by God to drink and eat whatever one desires corporately! Therefore the church’s position on alcohol cannot be something that would require us to rewrite the very commands of Christ for His sacrament. I like how R.C. Sproul defines “Christian liberty” in his commentary on Romans 14:

“The Classical understanding of Christian Liberty is this: we are not to try and force somebody with a scruple against something, as uniformed as that scruple may be, to violate his conscience. The basic principle that unfolds here is one of loving sensitivity. If my brother believes that drinking a glass of wine is sin, I ought not to try to coax him into drinking a glass of wine. That would be an attempt to entice him to violate his conscience, . The violation of one’s conscience, even if it is a misinformed conscience, is a serious matter. That does not mean that we should stand back and allow our weaker brother to make his scruple the law of the Church. Paul makes clear in his teaching that though we are to be sensitive, loving and kind to the weaker brother we ought never to allow him to exercise tyranny over the church”

We who regularly enjoy alcohol are never to force another brother into violating his conscience. We are not to coax or twist their arm into doing something they do not feel comfortable with. It’s serious business to do this and an incredibly grievous sin.

But is one forced to drink alcohol by smelling it? Is one ever forced to partake of communion against their will? Is one forced into drinking alcohol to the point of sinful drunken stupor by seeing a frosty beer in a photo on Facebook, or by seeing a six pack in my fridge, or by seeing a blog title photo of the bar taps on Grace to You’s own website?

Certainly this is absurd reasoning that is not based from Romans 14, which commands us to engage in the “mutual upbuilding” of one other. Instead, this sort of lopsided non-biblical tyranny is not based on Paul’s commands but on Alcoholics Anonymous-Freudian psychology, and not on a Biblical understanding of sin, regeneration, and sanctification.

A while back, as a way to prove the inconsistency of this point, I posted some photos of Krispy Kreme doughnuts on my Facebook. Was I rebuked for causing people to stumble? Was I warned of the possibility of causing a glutton to dive into an entire dozen by himself? Was my devotion to the Gospel questioned?

Most assuredly it was not.

Instead I was treated to hardy har hars from people who said they were “tempted” and “stumbling” – none of them serious, of course. Yet when I posted the photo of a beer, suddenly I crossed the line. I went too far in expressing my Christian liberty and, though no one was tempted toward gluttony in one picture, I was in danger of causing countless Christians to fall into despair because of the other.

We as Christians should demand consistency with every Scriptural argument that contradicts how we live our lives. If Christian prohibitionist or “abstinence is wisdom” crowds were consistent with their view of alcohol and the church, they would no longer go to pot-lucks, they would not be seen at a restaurant, bakery, or grocery store, they would eat only in the privacy of their own home with closed curtains, or they would starve to death out of fear of causing a brother to stumble. Why don’t the teetotalers  demand that engaged women cease to wear a ring on their finger as they are clearly causing other single woman to covet. If the teetotaler position was consistent and as sensitive with other subjects as they are with alcohol, there should be no public weddings at all to prevent single brothers and sisters from coveting being married.

The teetotalers’ logic and reasoning is absurd. We as a body of believers are not to reconstruct our church policies, our practices, and our sacraments based on the opinions of every weaker brother who walks into our building.

So then, Romans 14 is clear: out of love for our weaker brothers in the faith we are to abstain when necessary from those actions requiring a mature handling, all the while teaching and encouraging the weaker brother to grow out of their yoke of bondage, in order that they might stand.

This cannot happen without public teaching on the subject. The church today demands that there be no teaching on the right use of alcohol and therefore the perversion of alcohol by the world is the only education on the subject our culture receives. This is very dangerous.

The weaker brother is to be loved and accepted by the body. But he is not to judge unrighteously or force the stronger brother into bondage and fear.

May we as a body of Christ cease to cause division over this subject any longer, and to stop treating God’s gifts as taboo subjects or worldly vices. May Christ allow us as a body to break free of the misunderstanding of God’s gift of strong drink.

And most importantly, whether we eat or drink, or whatever we do, let us do all to the glory of God.

The following is the re-post to a series of blogs I wrote on the topic of Alcohol from my old Transplant Ministries blog. People have requested that I post it somewhere they could have access to.  So here it is.  This is the third in a series please read part one here.

Recently I have been reading a book called “The Search for God in Guinness”. I reviewed the book on @SolaGadgeta a while back ago. Instead of rehashing the book, I suggest that you read the review here.

But to sum it up, it makes a case that Christians were the better brewers. Not just in that their beer was superior, but their business model and how they used the money to advance the Gospel was superior.

Arthur Guinness was a Christian who was most likely saved during Whitefield and Wesley’s tour of Ireland. He used the money he made from founding Guinness beer to pay for his employees to take vacations with the family, educate the wives of his workers and planted the first Sunday schools all over Ireland. His children were benefits to the covenant blessings, were successful and also had a heart for the Lord. Author Guinness the Second continued to run the company under the authority of the Gospel even after his father.

Yet, nowadays the first thing that comes into an individual’s mind when you mention beer and wine is not Godly men using the profits to further the Gospel, instead its filthy bars, DUI’s, strip joints, drunks falling face down on the pavement and if your an open air preacher like myself…hecklers.

Alcohol has become so synonymous with worldliness that it is almost impossible for anyone to imagine that alcohol is a gift from the Lord to be enjoyed by Christians even when scripture is indisputable about the topic.

“Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for God has already approved what you do.”  Ecc 9:7

“He makes grass grow for the cattle and plants for people to cultivate— bringing forth food from the earth: wine that gladdens human hearts, oil to make their faces shine, and bread that sustains their hearts.” Psalm 104:14-15

We see from these two verses that God has approved the drinking of alcohol for Christians and that the drinking of alcohol has a primary purpose to “gladden human hearts.” Alcohol is meant to make conversation among friends light hearted and to make fellowship sweeter than it already is. Alcohol has been given to men, by God,  to produce joy, that is it’s God-given purpose.
Alcohol, more specifically “strong drink” is also made to be used in worship to God. Shocking though it may be in Deuteronomy 14:26 the Words of God are clear:

“and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice you and your household.” Deuteronomy 14:26

Let me just insert right here that if I were to concede that “wine” in the Bible means watered down unfermented grape juice (which I don’t), there would still be a problem. If drinking any alcohol is a sin one has to ask how an individual can drink “strong drink” in the presence of a God who can’t be in the presence of sin.

Here is what the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance says “strong drink” means: “From shakar; an intoxicant, i.e. Intensely alcoholic liquor — strong drink”

God actually commands the people of Israel to drink an intensely alcoholic drink in his presence! To say that drinking is a sin means that the God of the universe is one who allows men to sin in his presence and this is a blasphemy against the very holiness of God.

Since scripture is clear on this, why is our worldview regarding alcohol so far removed from what the Bible says our worldview should be? What has happened?

Originally Christians had dominion over alcohol. Wine used to be called the drink of the clergy. We were given it as a gift, to enjoy rightly, just as we are to enjoy food and sex. Food, sex and alcohol are undeserved gifts from God to be used properly under God’s law for his Glory and our good. The Church is to teach on its proper use and to be vocally against those who abuse it. For most of Church history this was the case. Drunkenness was seen as shameful, and the drunkards were the lowest part on the society’s totem pole. Martin Luther and many of the reformers were very public about what they would drink and likewise drunkenness.

“It is possible to tolerate a little elevation, when a man takes a drink or two too much after working hard and when he is feeling low. This must be called a frolic. But to sit day and night, pouring it in and pouring it out again, is piggish… all food is a matter of freedom, even a modest drink for one’s pleasure. If you do not wish to conduct yourself this way, if you are going to go beyond this and be a born pig and guzzle beer and wine, then, if this cannot be stopped by the rulers, you must know that you cannot be saved. For God will not admit such piggish drinkers into the kingdom of heaven [cf. Gal. 5:19-21]… If you are tired and downhearted, take a drink; but this does not mean being a pig and doing nothing but gorging and swilling… You should be moderate and sober; this means that we should not be drunken, though we may be exhilarated.”

So there were many great reformers and Godly men who were very outspoken and in favor of Christians drinking.

But then came prohibition.

Instead of the church standing up, fighting against the feminist onslaught against this clear gift from God, the church actually supported it. The church joined together to actually make a gift from God illegal and thereby making possession of it a crime against the state. I actually own a copy of a children’s book from the eighteen hundreds that tells kids that the reason you are spanked is because your daddy drinks. From this there were many different theories that were created as to how one could possibly reconcile Jesus Christ and wine. The definition of “wine” was changed to mean something unfermented. Suddenly the church did as the Pharisees and created laws against God’s gift.

The church shook their fist at God and sided with Thomas Welch who invented a new, less sinful way of taking communion and Welch’s Grape Juice was born. Thanks to Mr. Welch during prohibition Christians could still take communion and not break the law. Besides using grape juice that is unfermented is a far more holy way of taking communion then God could ever have imagined. (sarcasm)

So instead of teaching its proper use and instead of using a gift from God as a way to demonstrate the Gospel, the church gave all power and authority over alcohol to the sinful world. Since prohibition, Christians have never been able to get it back, nor have they been willing. It’s very rare that the Government realizes that something is a bad idea before the church does.  Too much shame, the role of alcohol within the church is still hotly debated.

The Lord God has given the Church a gift and instead of receiving it with joy, we have told God that we don’t want it, we have told God that his gift is sinful and by our own logic we have made Jesus Christ out to be a drunkard who instituted a sacrament which brings men into temptation; after all we know what is good for us.

Is there any wonder why there is such a negative stigma associated with alcohol? We have given authority of alcohol to the world and we need to take it back.

Currently the world regulates all aspect of the industry.

The business end of alcohol is filled with marketing that promotes drunkenness, fornication, a shameful view of marriage and is completely absent of a Biblical view of manhood. This perversion of God’s gift doesn’t just stay within the confines of The Big Beer companies marketing department, it trickles down the glass to the bars, pubs and restaurants who encourage drunkenness and fornication for profit. Every aspect of the brewing industry has been given over to sin and it would be easy to stop there and blame all of this on Anheuser-Busch InBev, Miller and Coors, but it’s not purely their fault because judgment always starts in the house of the Lord.

I am convinced that the reason Alcohol has become such a sinful industry is not because of the sinful marketing, not because of the greed of the local bars or rise of some made up disease, instead all blame rests solely on those within the church, who washed their hands of the alcohol industry. The Lord has given the Church a gift and we have refused it. Instead of being responsible with the Lords gift, we have taken the easy route and just decided to avoid it all together. The church has no reason to complain about the current state of the alcohol industry because the church, in all its apathy is the one who has caused it.

When the Church leaves something of Gods into the hands of the world, the Church should not be surprised to find that it is ruined. What has happened with alcohol is happening with other gifts from God. The church has actually allowed the Government to vote on marriage. The Government has not been given authority to recreate that definition, nor have they been given authority to even call it into vote. That is done by God and is forever established apart from the ideas of kings. Churches need to stand up to these votes and say we don’t care what the outcome is, we refuse to accept it. Marriage is ours…thus saith the Lord.

So, the Christians who did not believe alcohol to be a sin, became obsessed with idea that even speaking of alcohol could cause someone to sin. So we made a gift from God a private matter. Thus the ones who abused alcohol were very public about it and started to shape and influence the culture with their sinful views.

The World has no authority to determine how we as Christians use alcohol. Many people have stated that it is wrong to drink because it could damage their testimony. What if an unbeliever saw? What would they think? To be blunt…I don’t care what an unbeliever thinks in this regard. The reason is I am never, ever called to submit to an unbeliever’s false interpretation of scripture. If an unbeliever thinks it is a sin for Christian to drink, he needs to be corrected of his error. We wouldn’t allow an unbeliever to have false understandings of marriage, likewise we don’t submit to an unbeliever who has a false view of alcohol. We wouldn’t allow an unbeliever to have a false view of the deity of Christ, likewise we shouldn’t allow an unbeliever to influence our understanding of his Word in regards to alcohol.

We have believed a lie of pop-psychology. The myth of alcoholism. We scream and shout when someone says that homosexuality is a disease, but when someone says their addiction to alcohol is a disease we apologize to them. If being addicted to alcohol is a disease, then every man on the face of the planet has not escaped the genetic condition known as lusting after woman.
Being a drunkard is not a disease. It is sin. Alcoholics Anonymous is a now Christless pop-psychology industry that encourages suppression of sin as opposed to repentance of sin. People are not alcoholics. They are sinners. Former drunkards who are now Christians are not seen as alcoholics, they are spotless and blameless before God. We don’t shield adulterers from all women, or even the scent of woman. Martin Luther said “Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women?”

Instead we use the Gospel to demonstrate a love for Christ that is superior to our love of lust. The same is true for drunkards. I have shared a drink with many Godly friends whose past is riddled with slavery to alcohol; before Christ the world would consider them alcoholics, but now Christ has restored them. Our attitude and goal for “alcoholics” should not be suppression and legalism; it should be repentance and restoration.

But what about the weaker brother?

Do we just toss them aside, do we flaunt our liberties around him? Not at all! To do so is just as equally a sin against God.

If I am having a weaker brother come to my house for dinner, I can abstain from wine or beer out of love for him, yet the weaker brother out of love for me should not expect me to empty my fridge and pour everything down the sink. This is the principal demonstrated in Romans 14:3 “Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.” There needs to be a mutual understanding among the body, not a dominate controlling understanding that causes us to live lives of fear and sneak on our tiptoes around the wine aisles at Wal-Mart hoping someone from church doesn’t see. The weaker brother is not to place the stronger brother under a legalistic bondage and the stronger brother is not to act as a child who eats a cookie while dancing in front of his sibling who’s being punished. Charles Spurgeon once said “”Woe to the man that delights in pointing out imperfections in others.” I believe this quote to be true for both the weaker brother and the stronger brother.

Finally we need to rebuke those who flaunt their abstinence from alcohol as a way to appear more holy then those who don’t drink. Those who abstain from drinking have not reached a level of sanctification that is higher than our Lord Jesus Christ. Drinking in public does not make you “look like the world” it makes you as Christ. This principal of doing things to appear more righteous is demonstrated in scripture. Paul chose to circumcise Timothy but did not circumcise Titus as it would damage the Gospel. It is no sin to be circumcised or not, but our motives have to be pure. So anyone who refuses to drink as a way to make themselves appear more holy, should be given a drink in order that they be humbled.

So what now?

For over one hundred years the church has handed alcohol over to the world, and by their silence the church has created a monster. I believe it is time to take it back and to not just sit down and allow the world to trample over God’s gift like grapes in a winepress. Christians need to be in the business. We need to be the ones brewing the beer, creating the wine. We need to be the ones owning the fine taverns and kicking out drunkards. We need to be the one who reinvent the industry and take control from the world. It’s time that we stop the silence and cowardice on this issue.

But first we need to drink in public again.

From my own experience, I can assure you that the wait staff do not enjoy serving piggish drunks. So I challenge you who enjoy a good craft beer to go to your favorite pub, enjoy a good drink, and get to know the wait staff. Leave a great tip and share the Gospel with them. Let your fruit of self control be a witness and a blessing to those who spend all day serving those whom lack it.

I remember one of the first times I went to a place to buy a beer in public. I looked at the waitress and asked “Which of these beers are smaller?” She quickly replied “We have a 12oz and a 16oz, do you want me to get you a 16oz.” She had never been asked such a question and assumed I was asking because I wanted to gorge myself. It is possible to be a testimony of the Gospel and to drink in public at the same time.

Right about now your thinking “If I buy a Budweiser I would be supporting an industry that promotes drunkenness and fornication! I don’t want my money to go there.”

So my answer to that is don’t purchase a Budweiser, I would never do such a thing either. There are tons of small brewers, called craft brews that enjoy making beer for the fellowship of it, for the taste of it, the hobby of it and for a whole variety of reasons that don’t involve drunkenness. The “Big Beer” companies distill the flavor, to make it cheaper as a way for people to pure and simply buy as much as they can and get drunk off of it. The problem is when the Christians remove themselves from an industry they no longer have a voice in the business. A boycott from Christians is not effective when Christians are not the ones purchasing the goods. So let’s become a consumer again and start rewarding those who do good.

Let’s be as outspoken against drunkenness as we are against gay marriage, but be as supportive of good brews as we are long lasting Godly marriages. The church needs a voice in the industry again. The church needs multiple voices in the industry and it’s up to the church to rebuild culture. Not to let culture change church.

So, if your conscience allows you, grab a glass and rejoice to the Lord for he has already approved what you do.