Of Secular Novels, Governments, and Drinks

Published on by D. G. Hart

Amy Julia Becker recommends secular novels to Christians. Among the reasons she gives are these:

The earnest and bleak atheist world-view provided by Camus in The Plague challenges any trite answers we might want to offer to the problem of suffering. The searing portrait of pain and loss that makes up much of the southern and African-American literary canon challenges the role the church has played in passively supporting the evils of slavery and segregation. (Toni Morrison’s Beloved, Zora Neale Hurston’s Their Eyes Were Watching God, William Faulkner’s Absalom Absalom all come to mind as books I have read and reread in my struggle to understand the persistent divide between black and white within this nation.)

It’s hard to know which contemporary novels will rise to the top of the literary landscape. Who are the Steinbecks and Fitzgeralds among us? The Chopins and Whartons and Cathers? Whoever they are, many of them are not Christians, and yet these are the perspectives that can teach us about who we are as a culture and how we as Christians can engage our culture through a lens of love.

Good novels—whatever world-view they profess—challenge us to love others better. They disrupt comfortable assumptions about reality. And, to the degree that these books state something true about the world around us, even if that truth is about God’s apparent absence, they also invite us to know God better by loving our neighbor all the more.

If secular novels help us to be human (at least in this period between the advents of Christ, since being a glorified human being will truly be transformational), can’t we say the same thing about secular governments? Don’t secular magistrates, even un-Christian ones, also make us ask big questions about what we share in common with unbelievers, what is government for, and the nature of community in a fallen setting? If governments were only Christian, wouldn’t we wind up with the Puritan’s Massachusetts Bay? The exclusion of non-Puritans from Puritan Boston may foreshadow the sort of separation between the wheat and tares coming at the last day. But it hardly does justice to life in a post-ascension era when the Holy Land is no longer holy and God’s people are strangers and aliens.

And then there are the humanizing effects of secular (read alcoholic) beverages. Of course, in excess they can dehumanize. But in the right proportion they make the heart “glad,” right? And yet, D. L. Mayfield thinks that some Christians may need to give up alcohol out of respect for their neighbors:

We have neighbors who eat raw chicken when they are drunk and get terribly sick; others who suffer from alcohol-related psychosis and bang symphonies on the trees outside our window at all hours of the night. People knock on our door with candy for my daughter, waving and talking to her even though she is asleep in the other room. People break windows, or almost fall out of them. Empty vodka growlers line the living room of one; another almost sets our building on fire when he forgets about the chicken-fried steak smoked to smithereens on his stove. There are people in our building who die because of alcohol—cirrhosis of the liver, asphyxiation from their vomit, slow-sinking suicides everywhere we turn.

And suddenly, alcohol is no longer fun. Instead it is a substance that changes my friends and neighbors, making them unpredictable and unsafe; it leaves me feeling helpless and afraid and vulnerable. It makes me question my faith in God, struggling to find hope for those who are addicted. There are other neighbors here too, people who are in various stages of recovery, and they help me. They drink their coffee black and smoke in the parking lots. They shake their heads and tell me they don’t touch the stuff anymore. They find that every sober day is a gift.

I certainly respect and admire Mayfield’s determination to live among the urban poor. But I would also say that by giving up alcohol — even for social as opposed to moral reasons — she has chosen a less human way to live, like not reading secular novels because the members of your congregation can’t handle them. Reading books by non-Christians, paying honor to secular rulers, and drinking and eating in moderation are activities that Christians share with non-Christians. In other words, being spiritual (as some Christians understand it) is as noted before not a way to be fully human but one that reduces our creatureliness to cardboard cutout proportions. I still don’t see how the transformationalists of whatever variety are comfortable with the goodness of creation if culture (literature, politics, and food) needs to be redeemed before Christians can properly appreciate or engage it.

131 thoughts on “Of Secular Novels, Governments, and Drinks”

  3. We have neighbors who eat raw chicken when they are drunk and get terribly sick;

    We have brethren who drink raw milk and gave up vaccinating from worldviewism breeding distrust of anything and everything outside of the church walls (or everything invisible to Biblical lenses in homeschooler microscopes). Who gives up what then?

    Like

  4. Rather than teetotalism (with regard to books or substances) it is probably more helpful to our neighbors to display moderation and responsibility. As in, “Hey, you can do these things and not have them send you careening off the cliff.”

    Same thing with homeschooling. Do it moderately.

    In general, people just need to chill out.

    Like

  5. Amy Julia Becker sounds very transformationalist. When did the Bible become insufficient to lay out the human experience? My confession tells me that the Scriptures contain “the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life”. What confession is this woman subscribing?

    It’s also worth pointing out that there are lots of things Christians and non-Christians could have in common, just by virtue of doing them. Doesn’t mean it’s right that Christians do them.

    Like

  6. A friend and I were recently discussing Mayfield’s piece in the context of where evangelicalism is headed. We were noting that the issue of teetotalism provides a less politically charged lens through which to view the changing social landscape of evangelicalism. We were also discussing it in view of Ross Douthat’s January 2014 editorial entitled “Social Liberalism as Class Warfare”.

    We easily forget that evangelicalism is as much a social phenomenon as it is a religious phenomenon. For many, it provided a social instruction and a dense social network that was otherwise absent from working-class society. In that sense, evangelicalism provided a regimented social structure that enabled millions to working-class families to pull themselves out of poverty and propel their children into the white-collar professional classes. When the turbulent Vietnam years came upon us, evangelicalism grew further, as it provided a refuge from the cultural sewer that seemed to be growing around us.

    Even so, evangelicalism’s rules were often a bit too arbitrary, and were enforced a bit too rigidly. Further, its theology was a bit too pragmatic, blending Scriptural teaching with Americana and a dose of two of Freud. It was never a movement designed to direct people to human flourishing; rather. it was a program to rescue them from potential destruction.

    Still, it’s not exactly clear where the movement goes now. I wonder if that’s not part of the reason why we have to keep overstating the threats that Christians face in our current society: We have no idea how to do church in the absence of alarmism.

    My friend and I were having this discussion as we reflected on the abysmal way in which evangelical churches have handled the issue of homosexuality. As someone who once identified as gay, I’d suggest that there’s as much a social aspect to homosexuality as there is a biological aspect. There were two things that always intrigued me: (1) fewer people identify as gay in more socially permissive cultures, and, among those who do, many still marry people of the opposite sex; and (2) a disproportionate number of people who identify as gay in the US had some substantial contact with evangelical religion. As I pondered this, I began to doubt my own reasons for identifying as gay. I don’t think I’d ever desired to have sex with men. I just believed that I was gay because that’s what my evangelical upbringing had implicitly told me. I was a small, skinny kid who deemed to be too intellectual, too artsy, too dreamy, too fashion-conscious, and too interested in individual sports. I was a far cry from the “manly man” propounded by the Baylys and by the evangelical world of my youth. After decades of being told that I was defective, I just internalized it.

    In many ways, the Baylys’ “manly man” is just the flip side of the coin from teetotalism. This stilted model of masculinity was never biblical, and certainly wasn’t intended to create men who reflect human flourishing. Rather, it was created as a blunt-force reaction to the threats of feminism. And just as we matured to the point that we could start enjoying fermented beverages again, perhaps it’s time to dispense with the manly man.

    Like

  8. Alexander, if the Bible contains all that and since you’re using a computer, does the Bible teach you how to build the internet?

    Couldn’t it be that life means eternal life?

    Like

  9. Alex, by your logic you should oppose teetotalism and grape juice communion since the bible does not teach the former and Westminster proscribes contrary to the latter.

    Like

  10. Alexander, what, like reading secular literature and imbibing substances (things you’re on record condemning)? But that same Confession you cite to suggest that the Bible is all that’s needed to understand life (transformer alert) also has something to say about the liberty of conscience, as in God alone is its Lord. When it comes to this life, believers don’t have to heed your personal holiness prescriptions any more than they have to sing praise choruses (which, by the way are to doxology what Frank Peretti is to literature).

    Like

  11. Mr. Hart- and maybe it means life in regards to all aspects of salvation: before and in eternity. How many people do you know who were converted from reading Virginia Woolf, or listening to a lecture on Dickens? Hmmm?

    Chortles- the oldlife.org prophets are at it again. And failing, once again. I do not believe tee totalism is required of the Christian; my church has never held that position either. And in our Communions we tend to use Port, I believe. So, how about that? You can continue to ascribe all sorts of notions and positions to people you disagree with because it allows you to reel off your pre-written screeds and avoid actually engaging with people as individuals, or you can just deal with people on their own terms. The latter would certainly make for more interesting and fruitful discussion.

    I am, myself, tee total. It’s a personal choice, for religious, moral and social reasons.

    Like

  12. Zrim-

    My church does not sing praise choruses. We sing the Psalms, alone, unaccompanied. As per the Bible, and the Westminster Standards. What does your church sing?

    I’m not asking people to adhere to my prescriptions. I adhere to the prescriptions of the Bible, laid out in a systematic form in the Westminster Standards. It seems you don’t. Perhaps you should read the standards yourself before attacking other Christians for not adhering to them. It’s clear you do not understand, for a start, the doctrine of liberty of conscience.

    Like

  13. Alex — “by your logic,” I said, based on your tone and your history of condemnatory pronouncements. And if you’re a teetotaler for “religious and moral” reasons, doesn’t that imply that the rest of us, if not wrong, are at least less right than you? And wouldn’t “biblical and confessional” be better than “religious and moral?” If you and your church defer to the bible and confessions on these issues — great. I don’t know what your elders put in the cup and made no assumptions.

    Like

  15. Alexander, bully for you and your adherence. But for a start, it could be that those who grasp liberty of conscience don’t make a spectacle of what they do or don’t do for religious, moral and social reasons. As C-dubs points out, how is appealing to these categories not a way to suggest what is pious for others? Why not leave it at a particular conclusion on a thing indifferent? Can you see the difference in wording?

    Like

  17. Z, maybe Alexander really means personal reasons, which means not broadly applicable, not necessarily biblicially or confessionally warranted. As such, maybe they don’t have a place in a churchly discussion. Mayfield sorta (I think) said that her decision more or less personal. But when it gets splashed on the cover of Christianity Today it’s obviously meant to impact the church. It sounds Finneyite to me.

    Like

  18. Chortles- Maybe you shouldn’t impute positions to people based on tone- which in a text forum an be very hard to discern- and go by what people say. If you don’t know what someone’s position is, ask them. Furthermore, innuendo is really quite unbecoming for a Christian so kindly refrain from such when talking about my reasons for not drinking. As you know, the term “personal reasons” is a very loaded term, especially if you’re going to accent the personal.

    Zrim/Chortles- I was asked directly about my position on alcohol- well, actually, I was accused- and yet I am accused of drawing attention to myself by responding and defending myself? You did, Chortles, make assumptions by your post about communion and you admitted as much in your reply to me. This is not honourable conversation. Christians should not be laying traps for one another and trying to score points. If you don’t want me to state my position on something don’t ask me. But to do so and then attack me for replying is uncharitable.

    Zrim- I used those terms because my personal choice is a result of the influences of the teaching of Scripture, the morality of drink and the social impact of drink. I do not, and did not, and explicitly said I do not, consider these binding considerations on other Christians. I did not use the term Biblical because I feel that would imply I was saying there was a Biblical mandate to be tee total- which I reject. I tried to use wording that best reflected my position, but no wording seems satisfactory to those who wish to score points against others.

    I do not consider this an issue of indifference. I do not believe there are really any indifferent issues for the Christian. Just because something is common to all men or in how common realm does not make it indifferent. Alcohol certainly is not indifferent.

    And it is not I who blogs article after article criticising other Christians for their lack of adherence to the Confessions. I ask only that those who subscribe the Confessions- and criticise others for their lack- adhere themselves to these Confessions.

    Like

  19. Bobby – I was a far cry from the “manly man” propounded by the Baylys and by the evangelical world of my youth.

    Erik – Half the guys in the Bayly’s circle are probably gay. Can you say “overcompensation”?

    Like

  20. Hats off to Alexander for living his pietistic little life in his wee little corner of the world.

    Like

  22. I’m very grateful for the bacterial antibiotics that got me over another pneumonia spell last winter.

    I don’t see the formula for this drug in the Bible, yet my life on earth was extended, without the drug I probably would have died.

    Like

  23. Alexander, you can understand the confusion. On the one hand you say that there is no biblical mandate to abstain from drink–that suggests you think it’s a matter indifferent. But then on the other hand, you completely remove drink from the category of indifference (then double down on the category of indifference altogether, yeow). So…?

    Yes, this all could be the over-reaction of a drinking Calvinist against the fundie in-laws who dictated dryness at the wedding reception lo those many years ago. But as with any form of legalism, what you have a remarkable way of doing is taking away with one hand what you previously gave with another.

    Like

  25. And, Alexander, I italicized “personal” because I get tired of using quotes. Just as a preacher shouldn’t give his congregation a lot of personal opinion, neither is it helpful in churchly discussions of doctrine and practice. And you play the victim well, but not convincingly. You’re like the guy with a moped who walks into a hardcore biker bar with an attitude, then disses some guy’s Harley.

    Like

  27. TBR:

    A friend of the family one day got “the call” to become a charismatic preacher, and he went and did it and then got cancer and was in really bad shape and down to 50 pounds (from 200) but got a healing circle together down in Houston at a place with all kinds of TV satellites to anoint him over a weekend and he’s still alive 25 years later…

    I dunno. guess it’s complicated.

    for the culturally impaired amongst us…

    (don’t answer the phone like this at work..)

    Like

  29. Alex, the confession admits (1.6) that the Bible doesn’t even govern all of worship or church government. Aren’t those necessary for salvation?

    Like

  31. Zrim- Perhaps we have a different understanding of the word indifferent. You seem to view that which the Bible does not give a definitive statement on as indifferent. Alcohol is therefore indifferent because there is not a definitive statement forbidding it. But there are statements related to it- there is clearly a prohibition against drunkenness, for example. So even if we shared the same understanding of indifference I would not say it applied to alcohol because there are clear rules regarding its use, or misuse.

    And this would apply to other substance use as well. Just because the Bible does not mention marijuana by name does not mean the Bible is silent on it. We are told to maintain control over our faculties- the point of partaking in marijuana, and a whole host of other drugs, is directly the opposite. A deed to this is the issue if legality. Most recreational drugs are illegal and that in itself can serve as sufficient reason to prohibit their use in the church. But even in cases where these drugs are now being legalised there is still plenty of Biblical argument against their use.

    Clearly not all substance use is the same. Some drugs which are used for medicinal purposes alter someone’s mood or state of mind, but in order to correct dysfuntion. And must be used carefully as they, too, can become addictive. And then we have coffee. Even coffee can be misused, but it’s effects and the effects if marijuana are clearly not of a sameness. This is why the moderate use of alcohol is ok but any use of marijuana is not.

    But I would say that there is very little which is indifferent. With some things there may be ambiguity or wriggle room but that doesn’t mean these things do not impact our spiritual state; our relationship with Christ.

    Chortles- I do not expect special treatment but I do expect, in a Christian forum, charity and kindness in discussion. I expect, if replying to direct challenges, not to be accused of boasting or grandstanding when responding. I do not expect name calling or innuendo or tactics designed to demean others. I do not understand why Christians would engage in these tactics, especially amongst themselves.

    Like

  32. Alexander: And this would apply to other substance use as well. Just because the Bible does not mention marijuana by name does not mean the Bible is silent on it. We are told to maintain control over our faculties- the point of partaking in marijuana, and a whole host of other drugs, is directly the opposite. A deed to this is the issue if legality. Most recreational drugs are illegal and that in itself can serve as sufficient reason to prohibit their use in the church. But even in cases where these drugs are now being legalised there is still plenty of Biblical argument against their use.

    You are totally out to lunch with the views of those who use the drug recreationally. And when they DO become legal over the short term, will you re-write your views, and look foolish doing so?

    You need a better metannarative, Alexander…

    Like

  33. Mr. Hart- it says it does not address the circumstances- time, place, duration- but does the elements. The arguments given in favour of reading secular literature given in the article you cited were not the circumstances, if you like. Rather they were to do with spiritual matters: the state of man, of the world &c. That’s why I would have no issue with reading a textbook on the workings of the combustion engine, but take a different view to a novel.

    Like

  34. Kent- I don’t follow what you mean by out to lunch.

    And I said that legality was not the only issue. What do I need to do to get you people to actually read what I write?

    Like

  35. Alexander, your definition of “name calling or innuendo or tactics designed to demean others” seems quite broad to me. Let who has not spoken rashly or ill-advisedly cast the first stone. And put up a bio sheet or an exhaustive list of your positions if you want never to be misunderstood.

    Like

  37. Alexander, you say that “a moderate use of alcohol is ok.” How do you get there without a category for indifference? But your diminishment of adiaphora, which acknowledges the ambiguities of even spiritual life, is exactly what gives rise to legalism which is about black and white. Paul had a category for these ambiguities that allowed him to say what he did about meat sacrificed to idols and feast days, etc. A concern for what one consumes impacting his spiritual state may seem admirable and pious to some, but in contrast to this Jesus pointed to what lies naturally within that corrupts. Do you intend to one up Jesus?

    Like

  38. in our Communions we tend to use Port, I believe. So, how about that? … I am, myself, tee total. It’s a personal choice, for religious, moral and social reasons.

    How does that work? Wouldn’t that technically be “tee mostly”? How do your religious (and moral) reasons not apply in a religious context? Why would your church choose to use Port (richer, more delicious, fortified (aka higher-alcohol) wine) instead of cheaper regular red wine?

    Like

  39. And since the Bible (and our confession) define the Lord’s Supper to include bread and wine, I would not consider use of alcohol indifferent, but rather mandated.

    Like

  41. Alexander, pontification on the motives of regular pot smokers is a total waste of time, things are changing so rapidly on all kinds of fronts and we are dinosaurs on every social topic, even by the age of 25 now.

    I think we are on the same side of the issue though, I may be even more law and order than you, but nobody is going to listen to us….

    Like

  42. Rube, I often opt for the white grape juice in the middle of the tray for LS.

    Nothing to do with my oath through the Corkmeisters to never drink under a rating of 91.

    Like

  43. Rube, agreed, but I’d be willing to set the question of the content of the cup to the side in favor of more consideration on its frequency.

    ps the new health legalists have made inroads with gluten-free bread. At least Welch’s tastes good.

    Like

  44. I know, right? I once took GF communion bread, and it was nasty! A whole new modern way to meditate on Christ’s sufferings!

    Like

  45. @Erik

    But in the world of the BBs, one can apparently restore his manliness by going out and vandalizing the local Planned Parenthood office.

    I’m also starting to wonder about Al Mohler and his inner circle at Southern Seminary (e.g., Owen Stachan and Denny Burk). These guys don’t seem to be too much different from the BBs. I would feel a lot more comfortable with my denomination (PCA) if we focused our cross-denominational coalitions on various groups of Lutherans than on making nice with folks in the SBC.

    Speaking of the SBC, last week was the 50-year anniversary of the murder of the three civil rights workers in Neshoba County, Mississippi, which was featured in the late 1980s movie “Mississippi Burning”. Their murder was orchestrated by Edgar Ray Killen, a prominent SBC minister in Neshoba County. Perhaps some of our Baptist commenters would want to comment on whether the SBC ever disciplined Killen. Or maybe they handled him like the theonomists in the OPC’s Southern California Presbytery handled Ken Gentry’s and his sex crimes?

    Like

  46. Bobby, that Killen was an SBC minister is a commonly asserted fact that is just as often denied. I’m not sure where the truth lies.

    Like

  48. Alexander, and YOU said the Bible speaks to everything, referencing the Confession. And I said, the confession says the Bible doesn’t govern all of life.

    Who are you going to believe?

    Like

  51. Gluten free will save your ADHD child. We just don’t know from what, yet? That’s not important.

    Like

  52. Darryl, one just holds his nose, you know, like being in the CRC or attending certain new-lifey OPCs.

    Like

  53. And yet, Mr. Hart, the parameters of these areas left circumstantial are set down by Scripture, i.e. the light of nature- natural revelation- and Christian (not secular) prudence, i.e. using the teaching of the Bible to adjudge these circumstantial situations. It’s a bit of a leap from that to using Mencken as our guide to the human condition.

    Gotta try better than that.

    Like

  54. Alex, if you’re going to use titles here, then mine is Dr. No one else uses them, why do you?

    Is it really a zero-sum game — either the Bible or Mencken? Since the Bible has nothing to say about American history (it would kind of be anachronistic if it did), I’ll take Mencken as ONE guide to the American condition.

    Like

  55. Dr. Hart (I apologise). If you’re wanting to know American history, then fine. But the arguments used in favour of novels- including in the article cited- concern spiritual matters, not the dates and motivations of the Civil War. Novels- like all art- seek to do more than provide information; they seek to influence, mould. They promote ideologies and doctrines concerning the human condition. That’s the difference.

    I use titles where appropriate. You are not only my elder (in age) but we do not have a familiar relationship. My practice is not always consistent, but I try to make it so. I’m sorry my practice offends you, but I believe that there is enough lack of formality in society today and that within the church, when discussing such matters, with people one doesn’t actually know, a little old-fashioned courtesy will be forgiven.

    FYI I tend to refer to Baroness Thatcher as Mrs Thatcher because I believe the more domestic title accentuates her greatness (humanly speaking) rather than fancy titles. I’m sure I’m wrong.

    Like

  56. I use Dr. just because I can never remember if the first name is spelled with Y or E, one L or two, two Rs or one . . .

    And were I to look it up, I’d forget before the next time.

    Like

  57. “Novels- like all art- seek to do more than provide information; they seek to influence, mould. They promote ideologies and doctrines concerning the human condition. That’s the difference.”

    But just because they seek to influence and mould, doesn’t mean they can’t at the same time contain a large amount of natural revelation. Of course we should be wary of the salvations they prescribe, but that doesn’t mean that at the same time their diagnoses can’t be penetrating.

    On another note, DL Mayfield is soliciting feedback on her blog under the title “I kissed whiskey goodbye”, apart from the unfortunate parallel, the problem is that most of her readers assume that abstinence is in and of itself a ‘better way’:

    http://dlmayfield.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/i-kissed-whiskey-goodbye/

    Like

  58. I hope Alexander doesn’t go over to CTC some day.

    The earth might fall off its axis at the sudden increase in refined prissiness in the writing.

    Like

  59. Kent- No need to worry. I believe the less a Christian has to do with Romanism the better.

    Like

  60. Chris, Mayfield strikes me as a new media evangelical entrepreneur. She’s hit the jackpot with a CT cover story — for 15 minutes a small-to-medium-sized fish in a tiny pond. She’ll probably end up at TGC before long.

    Like

  61. Kissing whiskey goodbye is ok, as long as you kiss cigars and Scotch hello (yes I know Scotch can be considered a type of whiskey).

    What’s that line about no vices no virtues? More and more in conversations with people about church life and morality I find myself referring to this or that position as ‘unnatural’ or ‘contrary to human nature.’ This is the great neglected area of Christian morality in our time. Christians reach conclusions about their morality that are repugnant to common sense. Example: a Christian school I know that encourages 2nd graders to fast for Ash Wednesday. Imagine asking a 2nd grader to fast.

    Like

  63. Mayfield trots out a fairly common appeal among tee-totalers, the idea that some how consumption leads or even causes the weak to sin. It’s almost as if one thinks that an alcoholic reaches for a drink simply because he knows somebody out there does. Mayfield wonders if those of us who consume actually know alcoholics, suggesting that if we did we’d be less inclined. But does she know any? If she did, she might know that they don’t drink simply because others do–there are more heinous forces at work. In fact, most seem quick to not want drinkers impeded for their sake.

    I also wonder if she understands who the weaker brother is. He’s not the one who abstains or abuses. He’s the one who doesn’t have his mind made up about a thing indifferent.

    Like

  65. I just finished reading that Mayfield article link and was taken aback with this comment:

    “I didn’t give up alcohol because I wanted to flee the evils of the world. I gave up alcohol as a way of engaging the evils of the world. Substance abuse and addictions affect every corner of our society. They keep people from relationships with God and one another. Have we swung so far on the swing of Christian liberty that we have lost sight of the greater purposes of looking out for the least of these, which includes many who struggle with alcohol abuse? Christian liberty is an important theological concept—it helps us remember and celebrate the grace and love of a very good God. But only in a context of diverse relationships do liberty and license makes sense. Casting wide our nets to include people of different ethnicities, socioeconomic backgrounds, and cultures will naturally cause us to consider how our actions affect those not like us.”

    John Y: Perhaps I am taking undue offense but why is a substance abuser patronized as someone who has to be looked out for or considered a “least of these?” That seems pretty naive to me but is a common evangelical attitude towards substance abusers. You have to remember she is a 30 year old woman and was born in a fundamentalist home, I guess. That is not like growing up in the inner city or other areas where substance abuse is more common. Besides, when substance abusers see people like this trying to help them it becomes almost comical in the degree of separation and complete misunderstanding of the individual she thinks that she can help from her place of supposed superiority over the poor chap. The smart substance abuser will use this naivety to his advantage and get whatever he can from her- free food, money, etc. etc. You cannot treat a substance abuser like they are lab rats while you analyze them in your white suits under the pretense of engaging the evils of the world. Who is the more evil one in this picture?

    I also question the assumption in her theology that substance abuse keeps people from relationships with God and others. Where does that come from? It betrays a view of human nature and sin that is quite shallow. Is the guilt and corruption of those who are substance abusers different from those who do not abuse substances? She knows not the depth of her sin yet.

    Good for her for trying to understand the substance abuser better but she has a long way to go before she will really know how to help them and hopefully herself too in the process.

    Like

  66. Alexander, I don’t care about titles. It’s an American thing. So go ahead and forego them. But if you do . . . BTW, does Mr. accentuate my greatness?

    “Novels- like all art- seek to do more than provide information; they seek to influence, mould. They promote ideologies and doctrines concerning the human condition. That’s the difference.”

    That’s a pretty limited and erroneous view of novels and novelists. I’d think the ninth commandment might render a more charitable view. I mean, if that’s what novels do, imagine politics and then we are smack dab in theocracy.

    No thank you.

    Like

  68. It was a lot easier with Baptist rules.

    If you invite 2 Baptists over you will drink pop and coffee.

    If you invite 1 Baptist over you will empty your beer fridge.

    Like

  73. David- Imagine a Christian observing Ash Wednesday!

    Zrim- Surely the weaker brother, in that context, is the alcoholic? I agree that her argument isn’t the most persuasive, but surely you concede that if an alcoholic came into the church and found a robust drinking culture amongst the people that could be a stumbling block for him? I don’t know the situation over there, but in Scotland the abuse of alcohol is a serious problem. And has historically been a blight in the Highland and Island regions.

    Like

  74. Right, Dan — she’s out there, agreeing with this comment on her blog:

    “I resonate with your perspective as it applies to alcohol as well as pork, tank tops, having pet dogs and the like in my life.”

    ?????????????????????????????

    In the old days one might have been shocked that she got a CT cover. No more.

    Like

  75. Dr. Hart, Mr. Yeazel- As always your charity knows no bound. Not. Thanks indeed we have a Lord infinitely more forgiving than the likes of you.

    Like

  79. I tried with a modified comment but I could not get past the sign in at the blog site. Probably for the best. It has been my experience that Evangelicals have a hard time dealing with those who espouse a differing theology than theirs. It is like Reformed theology is from a different planet.

    Alexander,

    I don’t know where you got unforgiving out of what I posted in my comment. Who am I being unforgiving towards? The writer of the article? Help me understand. I am reacting towards how pietists come across as morally superior towards those who are struggling with obvious sins in their lives. From where I am standing I get more attuned to those whose self-righteousness (with the help of the power of the Spirit) knows no bounds. What we have here is a problem to communicate. I think Paul Newman said that in one of his movies.

    Like

  80. Alexander, maybe you didn’t notice because I forgot to address you by name, but I’m still interested in what you might have to say to my questions a while ago on you noting that your church uses Port in communion, but you label yourself as tee total:

    How does that work? Wouldn’t that technically be “tee mostly”? How do your religious (and moral) reasons not apply in a religious context? Why would your church choose to use Port (richer, more delicious, fortified (aka higher-alcohol) wine) instead of cheaper regular red wine?

    Like

  81. Rube, you KNOW it means he huffs and puffs and threatens to blow all our houses down, but when put under the tiniest bit of scrutiny curls up in a fetal position and cries for mercy.

    I’d be willing to enjoy this as long as he admits he was joking all along as an internet cartoon tough guy on here…

    Like

  82. Rubered- Apologies, I completely forgot about your questions.

    I don’t know why Port, specifically, is used. As to my partaking: I make an exception for Communion. Because 1) it is required the drink used be alcoholic 2) I’m happy to make an exception in this, I’m sure you’ll agree, highly specific situation 3) I think I’m right in saying that even those who abstain from alcohol for medical/addiction reasons would still be encouraged to partake of the wine because this is a holy ordinance, with the elements set apart for a holy rather than common use.

    I hope that answers your question.

    Like

  83. Rube, since this thread is reaching Outer Limits levels I’ll weigh in with some wine words. Scots probably use Port because of a national connection — Scots were big players in the Port business, especially in the 19th century.

    As the designated wine buyer for our communion Sundays I went through lots of testing (tough job, I know) to find the right type for our tray. I judged Port to be too strong (the alcohol wafts off of it) and distractingly sweet. I finally found a cheap red sweet wine that is not too sweet, still tastes like wine. I nixed the suggestion to use Manischewitz — so sweet as to supposedly be palatable to children.

    Like

  84. Alexander, I understand that’s the popular thinking, but no, I wouldn’t concede that. Alcoholics know that there is a perfectly legitimate drinking world out there and that it shouldn’t be expected to revolve around them, that it’s on them to slog through the difficulties of having a pathology that others don’t. The wiser ones anyway.

    Some extended thought on just who the weaker brother is (and isn’t):

    http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/the-weaker-brother-2/

    Like

  85. Alexander, yes, that does answer my question, and even satisfactorily. My only other point is that, I don’t know about your church’s reason for Port specifically (Chortles, interesting historical connection), but my church uses Port, and my understanding is that the reason is because it is more luxurious, more celebratory, more good; an indication that in His supper, Christ is offering us rich fellowship at a table loaded with the best; a foretaste of the consummate fellowship we will experience at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. And that theology doesn’t make much sense unless it is referring to a creation order in which (a) wine is intrinsically good, and (b) port is intrinsically more good.

    So abstinence is not a position of piety, it is a position of preference — and actually an incorrect preference, a preference resulting from uninformed taste, like someone who cannot enjoy good food because they only know and like mac&cheese; or someone who cannot enjoy good coffee because they haven’t learned enough about coffee to know what make some coffee good and some coffee bad. It’s like me; I don’t enjoy wine; I know that appreciating wine takes education, and I’m not willing to put in the effort. Same with single-malt scotch. (I am a craft-beer enthusiast though) Same with smoking. Same with secular music. Same with dancing. etc etc. I can affirm that good things are good, without enjoying them personally. But just because it is possible for others to abuse good things, that doesn’t impute any kind of Rom 8/14-based piety on my abstinence.

    Like

  86. Z I think you might have misread; Alexander said “even those who abstain from alcohol for medical/addiction reasons would still be encouraged to partake of the wine” — so I think he would agree with you and me that alcoholics are to be expected to conform, rather than the Supper.

    Like

  87. Ah, Rubered, we were almost in accord there. Alas and alack. But I think it best to leave it at agreeing to disagree.

    P.S. I would adventure to say that the reasons your church uses Port would be the reasons mine does. But I’ve never asked so I wouldn’t want to be speak definitively.

    Like

  88. Mr. Alexander M. Smith, man up. Instead of answering a comment, you take umbrage behind the wall of sanctified victimhood. You’ve been known to be a tad judgmental here yourself.

    Let it dangle.

    Like

  89. cw, when the missus and I had Lord’s Supper duties (congregation’s name withheld to protect the innocent), we switched from Manishewitzt to Gallo table red one Sunday. The response? Too dry. If you know the difference between sweet and dry (within the ball park of wet wine), why would ever say it’s TOO dry?

    Like

  90. TBR (to Kent) – You didn’t visit your nearest faith-healer?

    Erik – Last night I was reading an article from 2008 about Oral Roberts University being bailed out by the Hobby Lobby family after Richard Roberts was enveloped in a scandal involving using University money for lavish personal expenses. One of the strings attached to the bailout was a change in the Board. Out went the Pentecostals – Benny Hinn, Marilyn Hickey, John Hagee, Creflo Dollar, Kenneth Copeland, etc. – in came the evangelicals, who presumably were more conservative when it comes to money. I thought that was interesting.

    Like

  93. Alexander – . Even coffee can be misused, but it’s effects and the effects if marijuana are clearly not of a sameness. This is why the moderate use of alcohol is ok but any use of marijuana is not.

    Erik – First off, I would say that people have probably done way more stupid (and aggressive) things as a result of being overcaffeinated than being stoned.

    Second, within a generation, marijuana use will most likely be seen the same as caffeine and alcohol use not only within society, but within the church.

    That being said, I have never been stoned.

    Like

  94. DG, agreed — the drier the better. My first wine choice was dismissed as too harsh, dry, or sharp. I think dry is more appropriate, but I’m just glad our wine is identifiably and evidently wine as opposed to Kool-Aid.

    Like

  95. Alexander – That’s why I would have no issue with reading a textbook on the workings of the combustion engine, but take a different view to a novel.

    Erik – But Al Gore would say the internal combustion engine is perhaps the greatest evil unleashed on mankind.

    What did “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” ever do to hurt anyone?

    Like

  96. John – Alexander is a masochist- he is reaching Richard like levels of everything contrary to his antagonists. But he keeps coming back.

    Erik – Thanks for not making me say it.

    Alexander has a long, long way to go to reach those heights, though.

    Like

  97. Bobby – I would feel a lot more comfortable with my denomination (PCA) if we focused our cross-denominational coalitions on various groups of Lutherans than on making nice with folks in the SBC.

    Erik – Go to The Resurgence and see how much Marc Driscoll features Brian Chapell and Tim Keller. I don’t think forging links with confessional Lutherans is high on the PCA’s list. They’re too far removed from the Zeitgeist to bother with.

    Like

  99. If we’re to abstain from alcohol for the sake of alcoholics, must we also abstain from sex for the sake of sex addicts? Those people know what goes on behind closed doors in that married couple’s house. Wouldn’t they deal with their addiction better if we assured them that we too were abstaining?

    Like

  101. “What we have here is a failure to communicate”- not Newman saying it but Newman getting beat and whipped by the guy who can get away with doing it (or who thinks he is getting away with the punishment he is inflicting on him).

    John – Alexander is a masochist- he is reaching Richard like levels of everything contrary to his antagonists. But he keeps coming back.

    Erik – Thanks for not making me say it.

    Alexander has a long, long way to go to reach those heights, though.

    My issue is with anyone who feels it is their life long duty to correct others on their subpar progress in sanctity. It makes you start believing that you can take the whip to others. If you are given the legitimate authority to do that one day that is exactly what you will do.

    Richard was an Edwardsian who cherry picked the Westminster confession. Alexander seeks to stay consistent with it. But I may be missing something.

    Like

  102. So abstinence is not a position of piety, it is a position of preference — and actually an incorrect preference, a preference resulting from uninformed taste, like someone who cannot enjoy good food because they only know and like mac&cheese…

    Rube, rarely will a tee-totaler admit he just doesn’t like booze, condition that naturally comes from refraining from a thing–diminishes the sense of the noble self perhaps. Also curious is how tee-totalers don’t tend to speak of food the way they do of alcohol. The usual line is that they are concerned for alcoholics, but rarely do they show the same concern for gluttons (what’s the PC term, “foodies”?), as in “I abstain from beef jerky because I don’t want to encourage someone’s tendency to over indulge beef jerky.” Maybe a good thought experiment for a TT is to choose something he enjoys and then see how pious he can get.

    Like

  103. And our last resident prissy nitpicking finger-pointing was too quick to invoke truck stop hookup methodology to make us feel comfortable…

    Like

  104. Mr. Yeazel- I have no desire to call you out on your sanctification. However, since these threads are on the topics of sanctification and legalism I seek to make the case for the old Reformed understanding of these issues. There are certain practices I have said should be avoided by the Christian, taking my cue from the writings of the Reformed and my church’s standards and what I understand to be the teaching of the Bible. If we were talking about gay marriage and I criticised that would I be accused of trying to impose my own piety on them?

    Zrim- I would agree with you about food and gluttony. I did used to drink alcoholic beverages- mostly beer. But it was never my favourite beverage and I have never liked wine. So it was pretty easy for me to stop drinking alcoholic beverages- the strange attempts by certain acquaintances to make me start again notwithstanding. And I have never considered the plight of alcoholics as my governing reason for abstaining.

    Like

  107. Erik,
    Funny thing, my wife is abstaining to help me through my…. uh-oh, I mean it’s all good.

    Like

  108. Chortles-

    Again I must ask: have you read the Larger Catechism on the Ten Commandments? How do you account for that? Were the Divines legalists? And have you read any Reformed writers pre-20th century?

    Like

  109. Alexander, do you think it’s possible then to be legalistic with oneself? Is it possible that to deny oneself something God hasn’t called unclean (think Peter) for religious and moral reasons and not mere preference may be to toy with a self-directed legalism?

    Like

  110. Zrim- Apologies for my delay in replying. I think it is possible and quite common for the believer to turn legalistic with oneself. The disposition of the natural man is to self-justification and even once regenerated the old man still remains within the believer, and be will always be seeking to turn any good work into a legalistic work. And this applies across the board. Even ideas such as “sanctification is just believing more and more in one’s justification” can become legalistic as the individual strives to belief “enough”. In fact if argue such an approach is more of a burden because how can one know if he has believed/trusted to the saving of his soul if there are not the marks of grace which act as evidences and assurances that he is truly born again?

    So we must always be careful that we are not trying to justify ourselves by anything other than the righteousness of Christ received through faith. Now perhaps the terms “religious, moral and social” are a tad vague but they are an accurate description of my thought process: looking at the teaching of Scripture, the morality of drinking and the social impact it has in Scotland I came to the conclusion that as a Christian it was better for me to abstain. Now if I were asked to give guidance in this area I would probably recommend the same course of action to other Christians. But I would not prescribe it, nor say that those who do drink alcohol are sinning. So if you like this is a conscience decision. However I do not believe that alcohol is an indifferent matter and on this we disagree.

    Like

  111. Alexander, it still isn’t clear why you say on the one hand this is a conscience decision but on the other it’s not indifferent. It may be the phrase “indifferent” that’s the problem. Maybe you think it means “a question that doesn’t deserve much thought,” in which case agreed. But indifferent here means a thing on which the conscience is free, meaning teetotalers and imbibers are free to have their respective reasons without either suggesting impiety.

    That said, if teetotalers can herald the virtues of abstinence and even advise others to follow suit then so may imbibers.

    Like

  112. A believer is entitled to make up his/her own mind on the matter of their drinking of alcohol, and live his/her life by those personal standards.

    Ordering other people not to drink and then drinking because “I can handle it” is a vile hypocrisy, witnessed in certain other denominations.

    Like

  113. Alexander, please bear in mind that a lot of us on here come from the Reformed side.

    As such we do not subscribe to the WCF, but there is a lot of respect for the document.

    So copying and pasting pages from the WCF and commentary on it doesn’t help prove any point to those of us who use other Confessions.

    Just saying.

    Like

  114. I’m not sure where A. is finding support for abstinence in the Westminister documents. Moderation is the emphasis.

    Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
    A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defense thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.

    Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
    A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge; all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.

    Like

  115. Chortles, so you can imagine how A’s credibility sinks like a millstone on here when he is twisting the WCF to meet his legalism.

    it’s just sad…

    Like

  117. Can someone please direct me to where I once used the Westminster standards in my discussion on alcohol?

    Like

  118. Alexander, at one point I had said that “When it comes to this life, believers don’t have to heed your personal holiness prescriptions any more than they have to sing praise choruses…”

    To which you replied, “I’m not asking people to adhere to my prescriptions. I adhere to the prescriptions of the Bible, laid out in a systematic form in the Westminster Standards…”

    To the extent that “personal holiness prescription” referred to substance use that sure seemed to suggest you think both the Bible and the Standards promote abstinence.

    Like

  119. Zrim- I also said, immediately before the post in which I made that comment you’re referencing, that I don’t consider alcohol something forbidden to the Christian. And then said of long after that post that I deliberately didn’t use the term confessional because that would have been too prescriptive. So I’m not sure how anyone would think I thought the Westminster Standards prohibited, completely, the drinking if alcohol unless they either didn’t read my posts or just ignored them.

    Like

  120. The second sentence in my last post should begin: “And then I said not long after that post…”

    Like

  121. Alexander, right, hence the confusion. As I’ve said, the problem seems to be your refrain that consumption is not a thing indifferent, which signals something completely different from your other explicit statements that it is not forbidden. Stealing, adultery, idolatry–these are things not indifferent, so when you count alcohol as a thing not indifferent it sounds pretty conscience binding. The problem isn’t that you’re being ignored, it’s that you’re being confusing to those who in point of fact read you.

    Like

  122. Alexander, you wrote:

    “However, since these threads are on the topics of sanctification and legalism I seek to make the case for the old Reformed understanding of these issues. There are certain practices I have said should be avoided by the Christian, taking my cue from the writings of the Reformed and my church’s standards and what I understand to be the teaching of the Bible.”

    “Again I must ask: have you read the Larger Catechism on the Ten Commandments? How do you account for that? Were the Divines legalists? And have you read any Reformed writers pre-20th century?”

    What else were we talking about?

    Like

  123. Alexander, of course there is confusion. You tout the confession and historic reformed understandings, but maybe it’s your rather personal interpretation of them that counts. You have a personal holiness scorecard in your head and we can’t read your mind. That’s why sticking doggedly with confessional documents and being no broader or narrower than them is usually the best plan.

    Like

  124. I define indifferent as being neutral, spiritually speaking. So plumbing is indifferent; the time we meet to worship on Sabbath is mostly indifferent (I’d argue there should be a morning and an evening meeting as that is the Biblical pattern but whether it be at, say, 10am or 11am is circumstantial). There are, however, Biblical and confessional regulations pertaining to alcohol consumption so it is clearly not indifferent. There are boundaries in which the Christian must operate in terms of his consumption of alcohol. Furthermore, alcohol has an increasingly intoxicating and lubricating effect on the drinker and therefore is certainly not a thing indifferent when considering spiritual things or our outward conduct.

    Where we seem to be having difficulties is in our definition of indifferent and that something can be not a matter of indifference but also not a matter of total licence or total prohibition. Sometimes there are nuances in an issue but that doesn’t mean it is an indifferent or neutral issue.

    I apologise if I have been unclear. Equally, if I have been so the way to go about making the issue more clear is not that exhibited in the last few posts by Chortles, Kent and Mr. Hart.

    Like

  126. A, to what were you referring here?

    “I seek to make the case for the old Reformed understanding of these issues. There are certain practices I have said should be avoided by the Christian, taking my cue from the writings of the Reformed and my church’s standards and what I understand to be the teaching of the Bible.”

    “Again I must ask: have you read the Larger Catechism on the Ten Commandments? How do you account for that? Were the Divines legalists? And have you read any Reformed writers pre-20th century?”

    I don’t believe it’s the wine-bibbing licentious Old Lifers who are making irresponsible, unfair statements or who are overstating or over-personalizing their cases. But somewhere in the Highlands a school marm is proud of you, A.

    Like

  128. Kent- if you don’t care what I do why do you keep coming back at me with hostility and so personally? If I’m touching a nerve or making you feel guilty then I apologise, I don’t meant to. But maybe you need to look at yourself rather than being so fixated on me?

    Like

  129. Alexander, the problem in saying that substance use entails something that plumbing doesn’t is that it ignores the fact that plumbing, like substance use, involves sinners. So both are equally vulnerable to abuse—just as one can over indulge, another can cheat his customer. But neither of these potentialities makes the activities in and of themselves morally questionable.

    When you say you avoid certain substances not merely because you don’t care for them or for health reasons (which makes sense) but because of the potential moral dangers to yourself and society, it can sound as silly as saying you don’t plumb not because you are uninterested or unable (which makes sense), but because you might cheat a customer at some point or fan the flames of crooked plumbing in society. It may sound pious, but to some ears it’s trying way too hard.

    Like

  130. Zrim- But we disagree on the inherent morality of a number of things that’s the disagreement between us. I think some things are wrong in themselves because the laws of morality set down in Scripture- and exposited in the confessional standards- forbid them, whether they mention them by name or not- whereas you think they are not wrong; I think some things are best abstained from without going to the extent of saying if is sinful to partake. I’m sorry if you find that too nebulous but there it is. I don’t think it’s a bad thing for a Christian to want to play it as safe as possible: since when was it a virtue to play it as close to the line as one can get away with it? Some things which are lawful are not edifying or beneficial.

    But we’re not even talking about licence here. The way drink- and smoking- is spoken of in this forum is to positively recommend them, to glory in them, to encourage them recklessly and unthinkingly. The student unions would be proud the way drink is pushed on this forum. And then there is the sneering attitude towards those who do not imbibe. I don’t understand why Christians would want to criticise other Christians for trying to live a chaste, quiet life away from the rowdiness of bars and the like.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.