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.

"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

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 -thanks Todd and I apologize for my rant just had to get that out!

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.

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?”

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.

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

hummmmmm,