SBC and Alcohol: A Response
Before I offer my view, I must provide a disclaimer. I dislike alcohol. I once left a restaurant when a friend ordered alcohol. Another time I refused to give directions to the LCBO when a customer asked me how to get there. As yearbook copy editor, I removed all references to alcohol in the graduate profile pages. In 2002, when Carleton University was seeking an alcohol license for Baker’s Grille I submitted a formal complaint. My complaint was dismissed after a conference call with the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario.
I’ve become more moderate since them. Well, sort of. I turn my wine glass upside down at formal dinners. I do not eat food that is cooked with alcohol. I partook in communion with a dry wafer at the Anglican Church I attended in Ottawa for four years, refusing to drink the wine or dip the wafer into the cup. I prepared a report last August urging Carleton to consider designating an alcohol-free zone for a specific area (a floor or building) in residence.
But with that being said, I’m not fully supportive of the recent SBC resolution. I think it’s important to view this decision in light of historical developments, because debate over alcohol has featured prominently in evangelicalism.
There has been a fascinating interplay between alcohol and North American evangelicalism. Prohibition was one of the great social reform movements in the early 20th century- and it wasn’t the Catholics or Unitarians who pushed for it. It was evangelicals.
After prohibition ended, alcohol remained a divisive issue – even splitting denominations. For example the Bible Presbyterian Church and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church were formed in 1937. There were two reasons for this schism. One was alcohol. Some leaders required total abstinence from alcohol as a prerequisite for church membership, while others insisted Christian liberty permitted moderate alcohol consumption.[i]
It must be noted that the SBC resolution was not, unlike the Presbyterians in the 1930s, demanding abstinence as a membership requirement.
I agree with Joel when he writes, “I think John Piper shows a wise understanding by recommending abstinence from alcohol rather then requiring abstinence like this resolution.”
I think parts of the resolution make sense. For example they “urge Southern Baptists to be actively involved in educating students and adults concerning the destructive nature of alcoholic beverages.” The New York Times recently published an article about the growing recognition among health researchers of the damage alcohol abuse has on teenagers. The article said, “Mounting research suggests that alcohol causes more damage to the developing brains of teenagers than was previously thought, injuring them significantly more than it does adult brains. The findings, though preliminary, have demolished the assumption that people can drink heavily for years before causing themselves significant neurological injury. And the research even suggests that early heavy drinking may undermine the precise neurological capacities needed to protect oneself from alcoholism.”[ii]
I also see nothing wrong with commending organizations and ministries that treat alcohol-related problems from a biblical perspective. As a volunteer tutor in the Regional Treatment Centre (a maxium security facility within the confines of Kingston Penitentiary) I saw first hand the devastation that substance abuse can inflict on individuals and families.
Other statements though are vague. I’m not sure what the authors of the resolution were intending when they “urge Southern Baptists to take an active role in supporting legislation that is intended to curb alcohol use in our communities and nation.”
Then there’s the sweeping statement that expresses their “total opposition” (as opposed to half-hearted opposition?) to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing and consuming of alcoholic beverages.
I can see the headline and story now:
“Budweiser Clydesdales Seek New Career”
The days of Budweiser’s Clydesdales trotting on your television screen flogging beer are over.
“Now what are they going to do?” exclaimed Anton Davis, Clydesdale trainer. “Maybe Disney World will hire them. The Southern Baptists officially declared that boycott dead.”
Under intense pressure from Southern Baptists, Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch) announced the closure of its brewery on Monday.
“We wish to thank our customers for their support over the last 130 years,” said Budweiser CEO Stan Hunter.
He added negotiations for the sale of the building are currently ongoing with Welch Foods Inc, but declined to comment on specifics.
“I’m not at liberty to disclose information until the contract is final,” said Hunter. “All I can say is that the grape juice market is growing.”
In all seriousness, I believe the SBC resolution is well intentioned but perhaps too broad.
[i] I stumbled across this anecdote twice this past week. Timothy George, “Evangelicals and Others.” First Things. Feb. 2006. Accessed 7 July 2006. Available:
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0602/articles/george.html
W. Stanford Reid. “J. Gresham Machen.” David Wells. Reformed Theology in America. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997. p 98.
[ii] Katy Butler, “The Grim Neurology of Teenage Drinking.” The New York Times. 4 July 2006. Accessed 5 July 2006. Available:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/health/04teen.html
posted by Trevor @ 12:15 PM
0 comments
