Monday Morning Insights

Photo of Todd
    .

    Personal Holiness:  Abstaining from Tea Drinking

    Bookmark and Share

    (1). Drinking tea leads a person to addiction to caffeine.

    (2). Tea and coffee are destructive to the Christian’s body, which is the temple of God.

    (3). Though the Bible does not expressly forbid the drinking of tea, there is an overwhelming preponderence of Biblical evidence that tea drinking is a sin.

    (4). Though some have the gall to say Jesus drank tea on the cross, it was clearly not the same kind of tea or substance that tea drinkers consume today.

    (5). The argument that drinking tea is not illegal in the United States, and therefore, lawful for the Christian, is an argument straight from hell.

    (6). Some cultures drink tea as a normal part of daily life, but that is no excuse for Christians to drink it, since we are to be ‘a cut above’ the world.

    (7). When a Christian purchases tea he is supporting an entire industry that has made a fortune by leading people to the mind altering, destructive, and nearly impossible to break addiction to caffeine.

    (8). It has been scandalously reported that some young, Southern Baptist pastors are actually having Bible studies in the local Starbucks in an effort to lead people to Christ.

    (9). A great concern for the loosening of the standard of total abstinence from tea drinking is the belief that those Southern Baptist moderates and liberals who drink tea will eventually cause the Southern Baptist Convention to turn back from a firm belief in the inerrancy of the Bible.

    (10). Drinking caffeinated tea for recreational purposes physiologically acts as a ‘mind altering drug, “

    You need to read Wade’s commentary on each point.  The long comments that follow are pretty good as well...

    Recently, the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention changed their bylaws to say that all employees and elected officials abstain from the "use of alcohol as a beverage." This was reason enough for popular SBC blogger Wade Burleson to come up with his reasons why everyone should also abstain from tea. Sarcastic, yes. But points well taken:

    Comments

    if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.

    1. Bart on Tue, November 27, 2007

      Having grown up as a Baptist I have always struggled with the issue of alcohol.  At my current church we are in the process of removing the reference to total abstinence from our constitution.  I understand the sarcasm of the article but there are some questions that are not being asked.  What about the 75,000 deaths from alcohol every year?  What about the long lis tof child abuse, personal injury and property damage, the scores of divorce and problems that are a result of excessive alcohol use.  No, alcohol is not the total blame as there are other circumstances involved, but it is a strong contributing factor.  God’s word is very specific, do not drink in excess, and gives us several examples of the problems that occur when you do.  From the comments yesterday, yes, the SBC spent time on a subject that is not essential, so does every organisation.  Seams like lots of people who are not even involved with the SBC are spending a lot of time talking about non essentials.  If you do not like the SBC position you can try to change it, or don’t belong to the SBC.  I do not like the ELCA stance on gay clergy.  I can either try to change it or not belong to the ELCA.  If I do no like the Catholic church stance on abortion you can either try to change it or no be Catholic.  Is total abstinance Biblical?   No.  Is smoking prohibited Biblically? No, but I respect those who feel they should not, and if the SBC wants to require it for thier leadership, that is thier right.

    2. Peter Hamm on Tue, November 27, 2007

      This guy saw “The Rutles” right before he read this didn’t he? (I apologize for the obscure cultural reference… except to those who get it.)

    3. fishon on Tue, November 27, 2007

      “But points well taken:”


      I see no point. I wonder if Wade use to be a “drunk” like I use to be? I don’t believe I have ever read where someone drank so much tea that they used a knife or gun in their tea binge. I don’t remember reading about someone almost killing two you men because they were sowest on tea.


      Wade’s sarcasm and attempt at humor is at best, ignorant of the sin of drunkedness. And it all starts with that “first” drink.


      fishon

    4. Peter Hamm on Tue, November 27, 2007

      fishon,


      for many many many of us, nothing like that, including drunkenness… “starts with that first drink”.  Not everyone who drinks is a drunk. On the contrary… MANY, I am guessing most, are not.


      Meanwhile our kids are so hopped up on caffeine it’s hard to believe sometimes…


      But I think we’ve argued the points of whether scripture condones drinking in moderation enough on this forum… then again, Todd brought it up by posting this, didn’t he…

    5. shane on Tue, November 27, 2007

      I chimed in yesterday and have to once again!  For the life of me I do not understand how a bunch of men want to judge my liberty by their conscience (1 Cor 10:29).  If I am at my home and decide to have a glass of wine with my wife at dinner-how does this “disqualify” me from ministry?  When I am finished mowing my lawn on a Friday afternoon and want to have a cold beer-why am I disqualified from senior leadership?  Please stop with the making my brother stumble defense, I might as well put my wife in a burka and lock her in the house.  Is there anything left which will NOT make my brother stumble.  If I know someone struggles with alcohol-I will certainly not offer him a beer but my goodness I do not need a bunch of overweight and insecure men disqualifying me from ministry which God has called me.  If God has a problem with me having a glass of wine-I’m sure He will let me know-He has a way of getting one’s attention!!  And I could not agree more with the above satire-funny but true.  And just to let you know that I am not an SBC pastor-but I am a lead pastor of a church and belong to the very liberal affiliation Assembly of God http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif-thanks Todd and I apologize for my rant just had to get that out!

    6. Daniel on Tue, November 27, 2007

      Of course abstinence is a good thing.


      The question is not whether or not it’s good to abstain, the question is whether or not extra-biblical requirements (I would say contra-biblical requirements—cf. Romans 14) should be required for leaders in the Church.


      The SBC is of course welcome to require whatever it wants to require. But it must accept that doing so makes it increasingly irrelevant in cultures where moderate drinking is practiced.


      My two cents.


      -Daniel-

    7. Randy Ehle on Tue, November 27, 2007

      My biggest problem with an organization requiring certain (or all) members to comply with an extra-biblical ordinance like abstention from alcohol is that it compels me to choose between my convictions and my affiliation.  It may be entirely appropriate - even beneficial - for me to put down my freedom for a period of time, such as while I am a student at a college or seminary.  However, contrary to Bart’s suggestion, it may not be so easy for an SBC member (or church) to change what may have been a lifelong affiliation. 


      In matters where there is biblical freedom, I think the best practice for organizations is to establish guidelines that clearly express the corporate convictions, recommend compliance with those convictions by members, yet still allow for individuals to live out their biblical freedom in wisdom.  Such was the result of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15-16; we would do well to learn from this example.

    8. Bart on Tue, November 27, 2007

      Randy,  “It may be entirely appropriate - even beneficial - for me to put down my freedom for a period of time, such as while I am a student at a college or seminary. “ 


      How is this different than asking board and committee members from putting down thier freedom for a time?   Remember this discussion was not about members but about leadership.  I totally agree with your suggestion for organisations to suggest guidelines and leave the rest up to the individual.  I also disagree with the SBC in this, but they have a right to put into place the rules they want.  They also probably require their trustees to attend most board meetings, not a Biblical stance, but a reasonable one.  As far as the dificulty of leaving a lifelong affiliation, could it be that the affiliation is to high on the priority list?

    9. Nora on Tue, November 27, 2007

      Bart, “They also probably require their trustees to attend most board meetings, not a Biblical stance, but a reasonable one.”  With all due respect, Bart, that is a requirement—and part of the job description—of the office of trustee, and really is not germane to the issue at hand here.  Obviously, to be a trustee, one must actually do the job.  But the question is, does the SBC really want to disqualify good leaders simply because they take an occasional drink in moderation?  This certainly does not interfere with their job duties, and is obviously not the reason the SBC chose to make it a disqualifier. 


      And I think you dismiss Randy’s argument too easily when you ask, “As far as the dificulty of leaving a lifelong affiliation, could it be that the affiliation is to high on the priority list?”  If this requirement would make members reconsider their loyalty to the SBC, perhaps the question should be asked of the SBC leaders, “Are extra-Biblical requirements for leadership too high on the priority list?”

    10. Randy Ehle on Tue, November 27, 2007

      I think Nora answered Bart’s questions to me quite well.  As for the priority of affiliation…believe me, I get weary of hearing people talk in a way that suggests they are [fill-in-the-denomination] first and Christian (or Christ-follower) second.  As for the organization’s “right” to put certain rules in place…of course they have the right under the laws of the US and the state(s) in which they are organized.  My comments had nothing to do with rights, but everything to do with wisdom.  And my suggestion was to communicate the preference of the organization in a manner that doesn’t limit the “rights” or freedoms of an individual’s convictions.  That can be done very gracefully and in a way that communicates the reasoning behind the preference (as suggested in Bart’s first response to the post)...without making it sound like it’s a Biblical mandate.  IMO, that would be a step in wisdom that emphasizes both personal freedom and personal responsibility

    11. Bart on Tue, November 27, 2007

      Randy and Nora,  Please read the first post.  I AGREE weith you, this is not something that I would have done, and am in the process of removing it from our church.  But, Randy stated that it is OK to put down his freedom while in college or seminary.  How is this different than while being a leader?  I also require things of my leaders that I do not require of the members in the church. Prefer would be a better word than require.  I would prefer that my leaders not be smokers although there is no Biblical reason, I would prefer that my leaders not be obese, although by many very strange formulas we all are overweight.  As far as the priority issue.  Yes the SBC must consider if it is driving away leaders and members.  But I have a man in my church who has been an attender for 40+ years.  He is active in all areas of the church, yet if you ask him he will tell you he is Lutheran.  We ahve 3 Baptist churches in this town of 12,000.  There are people that attend the SBC church that do not like the seervice, pastor, people, etc. but they attend only because it is SBC.  The tell me they would love to come to our church but we are not SBC.  In these cases the priority is messed up.  Recent article in DesMoines Register about a man whose membership was terminated from a church becasue he did not attend.  He couldn’t understand why.  Some rules and regulation although not necessarily Biblical can provide structure and order.  I may disagree with the SBC on this, but they are not entirely nuts.

    12. deaubry on Tue, November 27, 2007

      this makes me want to drink a little wine for my often infirmities, and i dont even drink.

    13. fishon on Tue, November 27, 2007

      Peter,


      I believe you missed my point. It is that Wade’s points are frivolous and child-like—when comparing the damage and destrution drinking has caused.


      By the way, I have never taught from the pulpit that to have a glass of wine or a beer is sin. However, I point out, I have never met a drunk that became a drunk without the first drink. Why take a chance?


      fishon

    14. Daniel R (a different Daniel) on Wed, November 28, 2007

      fishon,  I think YOU missed the point.  Frivolous and child-like (satirical) is what the author was going for, much as the new SBC prohibition is frivolous and child-like.


      Yesterday it was OK for an SBC Pastor to have aglass of wine with dinner, but today it is reason for expulsion?

    15. deaubry on Wed, November 28, 2007

      hummmmmm,

    16. Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

      Post a Comment

    17. (will not be published)

      Remember my personal information

      Notify me of follow-up comments?

    Sponsors