As most of you know, my church upbringing as a child was in the Southern Baptist denomination. Overall, I think this was a relatively good foundation from which to build my personal views of ethics and values, but in some ways the stereotypical Baptist conventions can also be viewed as too restrictive and judgmental. Perhaps the most controversial of these tenets is that absolute abstinence of alcohol is required in the eyes of God.
I understand the principle behind this the context of alcohol reducing one's inhibitions to the point of acting upon ones baser desires instead of focusing on the path of the Lord. And watching any edition of Girls Gone Wild or hanging out at a typical frat party in college would certainly support this view. Proponents of a complete abstinence from alcohol typically cite numerous passages from the Bible warning about its dangers. They'll say that the "wine" used in biblical times was merely a way to sanitize water, and probably didn't even have near the amount of actual alcohol today's versions of wine have. From my recollections, though, the passages from the Bible that "forbid" alcohol, merely warn against drunkeness, or drinking to extremes. I'm not sure it explicitly addresses moderate drinking.
I would argue that drinking amongst friends in moderation can be a good thing, as some of the inhibitions we have aren't necessarily there for good reasons. A little alcohol sometimes helps to "loosen things up" a bit, at least to the point that one can feel comfortable enough to share some deep inner thoughts without the brain being fearful that whatever comes out will be overscrutinized and judged in a negative way. This is not necessarily related to the direct biological effects alcohol has on the brain, but perhaps may simply be a result of sharing in a social activity that promotes hanging out and having a conversation. Central to a church is a sense of community, and being able to discuss issues honestly and openly with each other in a lucid manner is perhaps what's lacking in some of the more strict Christian communities these days. In other words, sharing a beer or a bottle of wine amongst friends can actually be a good thing.
I wonder if the Southern Baptist Convention sometimes loses sight of these things. The fear of alcohol at times is so engrained into their being that they'll shun anything even remotely related to alcohol, as was done with water donations from Anheuser-Busch during hurricane relief efforts. It seems that it's human to delve into territories that are potentially dangerous, but may say a lot about man's self-control and connection with God when he can enjoy these things in a responsible manner in a way that treats such pleasures as gifts to be thankful for rather than sinful delights to be shunned out of existence.
With that, I wasn't sure what to think about this article recently in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Picnics and coffeehouses used to be the typical gathering places outside of the church, but it seems one church here in town is making the brewpub the new location for ministry:Theology at the Bottleworks is run by a wildly successful congregation of young St. Louisans called The Journey. The Schlafly program is part of the church's outreach ministry. And it works.
The Missouri Baptist Convention donated $200,000 to this church to help them buy and renovate an old Catholic church to be their new home, so you can guess there's a bit of friction in regards to their "beer ministry."
Every month dozens show up at the brewpub to drink beer and talk about issues ranging from racism in St. Louis to modern art controversies to the debate about embryonic stem cell research. First-timers are invited to check out the church on Sunday, and Journey leaders say many have. Theology at the Bottleworks is just one of The Journey's ministries, but it has helped the church grow from 30 members in late 2002 to 1,300 today.
It's an interesting idea, and one that would at least make me a bit more curious about this church. Tolerance is never a bad thing (and Schlafly beer isn't too shabby either).
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
If Jesus walked the Earth today, perhaps he'd be turning water into beer...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Funny how this is exactly what my church does on Tuesday nights during the summer. It promotes good discussion and good community.
I feel like the Baptist's views on alcohol unfortunately abuse scripture to help support their thoughts. I have often wondered what Paul meant when he said to Timothy that he should have some wine to settle his stomach. I have not ever had an O'Doul's (watered down alcoholic bevereage similar in thought to the "sanitzed" water you speak of) that settled my stomach, but I have had beer and wine that has warmed my belly and settled it down.
This is a prime example of why a person should never simply take the word of another when it comes to something as important as one's faith. It requires self-study (in both senses of the word) and much contemplation.
Then, you need to be prepared that your thoughts might change in time. Truth is subjective and based on where we are in our lives, and where we've been.
I would have to disagree about truth being subjective. If truth is subjective then it is no longer truth.
I guess this would depend on your definition of truth, but I don't believe that I could believe something to be the truth and someone to belive the opposite is the truth and for both of us to be right.
This needs to be a discussion with a beer involved.
Wait twenty years and then let me know if you still feel the same way.
Fact is concrete. Truth is subjective. You used to think girls had cooties. Now you have at least two in your life that you would take a bullet for.
That beer sounds good. Maybe a slightly chilled bock. Mmmmmmm.
Ah, I think you two are getting too caught up in semantics here.
I suppose Willie's point is that REAL truth is fact, and is not subjective. Now we just have to figure out what's real.
I'll take the red pill with my beer, please.
I will go out on a limb here and do something I don't normally do. I am going to respond withut having all my ducks in a row. It makes for a much healthier thught process on my part because I can approach it with openness. (In the past I would have not gone out on a limb and just kept my thoughts to myself, and felt weaker for it later.)
So here goes. I don't think that truth and fact go together. Fact can be proven, but from a philosophical perspective I don't think that truth can be. My reason for thinking this is that fact is backward looking. It is something that has happened and might happen again, but it is not ongoing. Truth on the other hand is forward looking and might have happened in the past but it is always. It is not an event. SO that being said how can truth be relative. I hesistate to use this example because I feel like it is overused in Christian bubbles, but how would you respond to the idea that Saddam Hussien could claim truth in all of his actions. Would not some of his contradict yours? I have to think that there are some eternal truths that are unchanging because I know some of my truths contradict Hussien's.
A true statement = truth. To define a true statement, you need facts, or a true statement = x fact(s). Thus, fact = truth.
Oh man. When are we having those beers again?
Can you prove truth? Would you say that good and evil exist? I would say that they do and it is a part of the whole of truth. But I couldn't prove it.
I have to think that there are some eternal truths that are unchanging because I know some of my truths contradict Hussein's.
To me, that just states why truth is subjective.
And I agree that good and evil exist because people exist. That's the whole gist of the expulsion from Eden - eating, taking in, the knowledge of good and evil. Evil can only exist when there is a choice. I like how an Indian hermit once put it. He said that he loved all the animals because they were all obedient to God.
Post a Comment