but be Honest!
[A couple of men have questioned my stance on social drinking after reading this article, even though I state plainly that I am against it. In the original version of this article, which appeared in our local bulletin, I mentioned that it, as well as two others ("Raising Children of Integrity," parts I & II), was designed to provide a framework for articles that would follow on various moral issues, including social drinking. Those articles can be found in the View, available here.]
I’ve heard people argue that how we come to a decision on a matter is relatively unimportant; all that really matters is the "bottom line." This often results in a misappropriation of Scripture to "blow the whistle" on behavior we feel is wrong. There is a notion that, even if the passage doesn’t support the prohibition exactly, the end result is good, so the use of the passage out of context is warranted. That is so wrong. A man who uses God’s word like that is a dangerous man.
For example, I’ve heard men state absolutely that I Pet. 4:3 teaches that drinking a little bit of alcohol is sinful. Here’s the text in the New King James Version: "For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles— when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries." The key term is "drinking parties," potos in the Greek. Here’s my comment on that, as published in my workbook on I Peter:
There have been attempts to explain this last word with terms like "tippling," thus implying that Peter specifically condemns "social drinking" (the use of alcohol which does not qualify as "drunkenness") in this passage. If so, then one of the "difficult" moral questions would be forever settled. However, such an answer is a little too "pat." I can find no evidence that the term, potos, ever had such a meaning. Since the word is used but once in the NT, the context in I Peter 4, along with the meaning of the word in other Greek literature around the first century, will have to be decisive. BAGD, Kittel and all the commentaries I consulted say the word means something akin to a drinking party or a "carousal." In addition, virtually every translation (cf. NIV, NASB, NKJV) suggests that Peter has something in mind which is different than what we mean by "social drinking." It is more like what we mean when we say "partying." The context implies that Peter is probably referring to a parties in which drinking plays a major role and which includes various other elements which we would associate with a "wild party." (p. 41)
Of course, a man may be mistaken; we’ve all made arguments that fall short or go too far. My criticism is of those who knowingly or negligently advance a view of a text which they know, or should know, does not support the point they are trying to make. I’m firmly opposed to social drinking. I think it’s wrong and those who do it should think seriously about why they do it. But I would never twist a passage to say something other than what I believe it says in an effort to strengthen my argument. I would be not one whit better than the worst apostate if I did that. In another part of his letter, Peter was very clear: "if any man speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God" (I Pet. 4:11). That imposes upon us a weighty responsibility not only to say all of the truth, but to stop speaking wherever the truth stops. Presuming to speak where God has not puts us above God. That’s lethal, not only to us but to those who hear us.
I understand the temptation. There is an article in a recent Leadership Magazine (a magazine for preachers) subtitled, "How can you blow the whistle when people don’t believe there are rules." There are rules, of course! And the temptation is to find a rule (vs. a principle) that covers every possible contingency. That’s a great temptation in this wishy-washy age. But the answer is not to abuse the Scriptures.
Someone once complained that conservatives are afraid of questions and liberals are afraid of answers. Both are serious problems. The liberal wants to leave the door open to every shade and grade of doctrine and coming to a conclusive answer on any issue counteracts that goal. On the other hand, an extreme conservative feels compelled to have an answer for every possible moral, religious or spiritual question. To say, "I’m not sure" is anathema to a man on the far right (religiously). This attitude gives rise to sloganeering and trite little sayings that are intended to wrap the answer in a neat little box. The Pharisees did that sort of thing.
There is a real temptation to formulate those answers by stretching a text, if necessary. For example, I’ve seen I Cor. 6:20b, "therefore, glorify God in your body" used as a club against everyone who smokes cigarettes, because, the argument goes, "you can’t glorify God in your body."
I am adamantly opposed to smoking by Christians. I think it’s a terrible choice and puts a man in grave danger of violating I Cor. 6:12, "all things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything…" Just about everyone I’ve ever met who smokes has been mastered by it. They won’t attend a Bible class because they can’t go an hour and a half without a smoke. That’s an addiction and I don’t know how we can be addicted to anything and expect to go to heaven.
But, if this text condemns smoking on the basis that we do not glorify God whenever we put the physical well-being of our body at risk, then common sense tells us that the passage also condemns everything that tends to put our body at risk. Red meat? Too much salt? Skydiving? Where do you draw the line? It often depends on "whose ox is getting gored. We may be very adamant about what a passage teaches, until our favorite food or pastime is affected. Then we bow our back. That is a dishonest way to use the Bible. I heard a man once defend eating blood because he would never believe any passage that prohibited eating his liver and onions! Regardless of whether eating liver is equivalent to eating blood, is that a man who is submitted to the authority of God? You judge.
If a man argues that the use I Cor. 6:20b to prohibit smoking is legitimate because the end that is achieved is a positive one (condemnation of smoking), what do you say to the man who uses I Cor. 7:26-27 to prove that the man who is divorced and remarried should never, under any circumstances, divorce, even when that marriage is unscriptural? It’s the same letter. Some argue, incredibly, that the result in the latter case is bad, therefore he’s not entitled to use the passage that way. But, it is a true proverb, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. In fact, both arguments are empty. Each of these texts have a context which determines their particular meaning.
The reason pat answers are so prevalent is because there are some brethren who will never come to a conclusion about anything – "liberals, afraid of answers – they never take a stand, except, perhaps, on the most non-controversial of issues. But the answer is not to provide phony answers that only appear to be biblical, but are really baseless. The answer is not to engage in "the end justifies the means" reasoning. It’s fascinating to me that ultra-liberals and ultra-conservatives end up using the same approach! For example, some liberal-minded brethren feel that it is a good work to provide a place for orphans to live. Therefore, for years, that end has justified their means of taking money from the church treasury and giving it to the institution, even though there is not one shred of biblical authority for it.
But even conservative brethren who have been vociferous in their condemnation of that practice use the same reasoning in areas they feel strongly about. There are men who will vilify preachers, call them false teachers, cast doubt on their reputations and attempt to have them blacklisted, sometimes on very flimsy evidence. They may even admit that they are kind of rough in their approach and that they don’t always double-check their facts before speaking. But they are convinced that these men are teaching error, and thus "the end (silencing these "false teachers") justifies the means (less than accurate reporting of their teaching)."
The approach or the process matters very much. Jonathan Turley, a professor at Georgetown Law School in Washington, D.C., an eloquent voice that has arisen above the din during this present crisis in the White House, said, "How this all comes out (i.e., whether the president is impeached or resigns or stays) matters very little in the long term. But how we do it – the process – matters very much." Why? Because the facts change, but the process is repeatable. If the rule of law is applied equally to any set of facts and there are people who care about the rule of rule and are dedicated to seeing it observed, justice will be the result.
Apply that to our moral, spiritual and religious decision-making. No matter how strongly we feel about a matter, if we care about the "rule of law" (God’s word), then we will trust them to lead people to the right conclusions, whether on smoking, drinking, dancing or any of a host of other matters. We may not always like the decisions people make; but we will honor the text, regardless.
dp
