Tag: fundamentalist

Revisiting Wine and Gladness

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

It’s been six years since I posted my thoughts on wine, in one of my most read posts. In “Wine to Gladden the Heart of Man”: Thoughts on God’s Good Gift of Wine I traced out the connection that I believe the Old Testament makes between wine and joy, and why I think that indicates that enjoying a glass of wine is permissible (and even recommended) for a Christian.

Over the years since, I’ve further developed and fine-tuned my position on this controversial topic. And I’ve appreciated anew the position of many that drinking wine should be avoided for various wisdom issues related to interacting with our culture. But my basic position still stands. I believe that Scripture praises wine, with it’s joy-producing qualities (a relaxed, calmed mind and uplifted heart) as a good gift from God for mankind. God gave us this for our good, but like many of God’s other gifts (food, sex, etc.) we abuse it and suffer the consequences. We can enjoy the gift of wine without sinfully abusing it and becoming intoxicated (or drunk). Drunkenness is sin, not a disease; but Christians can responsibly enjoy wine without getting drunk (which is sinful and wrong). I have never come close to being drunk, but I have learned to appreciate the gift of wine.

I bring this up because over at Sharper Iron last week, Aaron Blumer posted a response to my article. His post is titled “The True Gladness of Wine,” and takes dead aim right at my central thesis. I respect his careful argumentation and clear position. He is gracious and fair, and he agrees with the majority of scholarship in holding that the vast majority of the instances where the word wine is used in Scripture is referring to alcoholic wine. But I don’t believe he successfully undercuts my primary thesis which I will summarize below. I’m only now responding on my blog, but I have participated in the comments on his post. You can read the 100+ comments over there and follow the whole exchange (which has been more charitable and instructive compared to other such comment threads). Before I proceed with the rest of this post, however, I want to stress that in over 1,000 published posts here at Fundamentally Reformed, this will be only the 10th post devoted to the topic. This isn’t the most important topic facing the church at large and I refuse to make it my hobby horse of choice. Still, from time to time I do discuss the issue because it is important. And everyone should take time to think through their position on this matter.

Rather than rehashing the back and forth from Sharper Iron, or summarizing and then critiquing Aaron’s post, I thought I would just detail here the connection between wine and joy, and why I think that the joy produced by wine is related to the alcoholic properties of wine. My primary point is that God teaches us that the alcoholic properties of wine were intended to be a blessing (which can be abused in violation of God’s will for us).

Wine and Joy

Before I begin, I want to stress that the evils of drunkenness are too large and real to be ignored and I agree that abstinence is one very reasonable way of dealing with that. But for me, it was Scripture’s teaching on wine which compelled me to pick up a glass and experience the joy of wine first hand. I felt like I was denigrating a God-created substance through my views on it and my cultural taboo that I held about it–I was placing reason and experience above Scripture. Everyone needs to think through this for themselves, and my liberty should not require others to partake of wine. But let me try to show why I think the teaching of Scripture on wine and gladness is so persuasive an argument for drinking wine in moderation.

Consider the following verses:

Wine and Gladness

But the vine said to them, ‘Shall I leave my wine that cheers God and men and go hold sway over the trees?’ (Judges 9:13)

You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man’s heart. (Ps. 104:14-15)

Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do. (Eccl. 9:7)

Bread is made for laughter, and wine gladdens life, and money answers everything. (Eccl. 10:19)

The wine mourns, the vine languishes, all the merry-hearted sigh. (Isaiah 24:7, see also vs. 8-11 and Is. 16:10)

Then Ephraim shall become like a mighty warrior, and their hearts shall be glad as with wine. Their children shall see it and be glad; their hearts shall rejoice in the LORD. (Zechariah 10:7)

Drunkenness and a Merry Heart

And when their hearts were merry, they said, “Call Samson, that he may entertain us.” So they called Samson out of the prison, and he entertained them. They made him stand between the pillars. (Judges 16:25)

And Abigail came to Nabal, and behold, he was holding a feast in his house, like the feast of a king. And Nabal’s heart was merry within him, for he was very drunk. So she told him nothing at all until the morning light. In the morning, when the wine had gone out of Nabal, his wife told him these things, and his heart died within him, and he became as a stone. (1 Sam. 25:36)

Then Absalom commanded his servants, “Mark when Amnon’s heart is merry with wine, and when I say to you, ‘Strike Amnon,’ then kill him. Do not fear; have I not commanded you? Be courageous and be valiant.” (2 Samuel 13:28 )

On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha and Abagtha, Zethar and Carkas, the seven eunuchs who served in the presence of King Ahasuerus, (Esther 1:10)

While they are inflamed I will prepare them a feast and make them drunk, that they may become merry, then sleep a perpetual sleep and not wake, declares the Lord. (Jeremiah 51:39)

There are a host of additional passages and verses that establish a connection between wine and joy, and loss of wine and loss of joy. My original post details those. What the second set of verses above establish, however, is that a merry heart is specifically connected with drunkenness. There is a specific kind of joy or merriness that is organically caused by wine. So wine and joy don’t just go together like peas in a pod (in that culture without lots of healthy beverage choices), instead there is a causal connection between wine and joy. The wine is causing people to have a merry heart in a particular sort of way.

1 Sam. 25:36 and Jeremiah 51:39 are most clear in establishing this connection. But I argue that a full-blown merry heart (complete with drunken stupor) does not have to result from “drink[ing] your wine with a merry heart.” In fact, Ps. 104:15 again takes center stage in this. God gave wine specifically to “gladden” our hearts. It causes merriment to happen. A relaxed and uplifted spirit, which is the experience of drinking wine after just a few sips, certainly is a joyous thing. And this is why wine is connected with feasting in Scripture and in so many other medieval (and older) cultures. Festal joy and festal drink go hand in hand. Yes there is joy that isn’t caused by the wine, but the wine adds its own joy. This is why (I believe) the joys of harvest and good food go together with wine often in some of the joy passages. But more than merely joy at the harvest or joy from the food is in view. The wine gives a joy of its own which enhances the entire experience.

So I posit a causal role for wine. Wine causes merriness (the sort that is displayed by drunken people, as well as other sorts of merriness). And this very merriment-inducing quality is what God praises. It is in this light that we should read the passages in the first list, like Judges 9:13 and Ps. 104:15.

Wine in Bible times

My thesis is aided by the general consensus that fermented wine was definitely being partaken of in the Bible times. In the OT, we don’t see evidence of wine being diluted (see Is. 1:22), that came about only later. Later, Greek and Roman cultures praised diluted wine and Jewish culture eventually followed suit. Yet even with diluted wine, the average ratio would put the alcoholic content at around 2.5 or 3.5% (by comparison the average beer sold has between 3.2 and 4% alcoholic content). But with all the passages above, my point here is that fermented drink was definitely in view. For more on this point, see my post “Isaiah 16:10 and the Two-Wine Theory.”

Additional Points

Before I conclude, consider three final points.

First, there are a few passages which speak clearly of alcoholic wine in one verse, and a few verses later wine is referred to in a positive light. Nothing indicates we should assume that the wine was different in the case of the alcoholic variety and the variety which is praised. In 1 Sam. 1:14, Eli tells Hannah to “put your wine away from [her]“. But in vs. 24, Hannah brings wine with her on her trip back to Shiloh. Nothing indicates that the wine Hannah brought would be different than the wine Eli thought she was drinking earlier. In 1 Sam. 25:18, Abigail serves wine for David and his men, then later in verses 36-37 Nabal is drunk with wine. Nothing in the context would lead us to think the drink David and his men received was different from that which made Nabal drunk. The difference of course is Nabal immoderately drank the wine, whereas David and his men didn’t. Joel 1:5, 10 is another similar passage.

Second, Scripture clearly praises alcoholic wine. Isaiah 25:6 is definitely referring to alcoholic wine when it indicates that such wine will characterize the blessings of Christ’s future kingdom: “And in this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all people a feast of choice pieces, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of well-refined wines on the lees. (NKJV) “. “Wines on the lees” is translated in most modern versions as “well-aged wine”.

Third, Nehemiah when describing what supplies were given to him as Judean governor, mentions all kinds of wines. Nothing indicates that he did not partake of them. And the context is one of approval, as he is writing inspired Scripture. Here is the passage: “Now what was prepared at my expense for each day was one ox and six choice sheep and birds, and every ten days all kinds of wine in abundance. Yet for all this I did not demand the food allowance of the governor, because the service was too heavy on this people.” (Neh. 5:18 ) So if there is two kinds of wine, this passage indicates Nehemiah partook of both.

I think the preponderance of evidence is in favor of my conclusion – which the majority of the church down through the ages has also held to. I conclude that the moderate enjoyment of alcoholic drinks is something God has intended for our good. God gave wine to man for our good and for the temporary relief of stress and other health benefits that it brings – and to give us the joy that we have when we drink good wine with good friends and people. This festal joy was God’s gift to man and God designed all of this when he created the natural fermentation process and the gift of wine.

If you want to read more on this topic, I’d encourage you to peruse my other posts on wine. And if you’re brave, you can dig through all the comments (there’s quite a few debates preserved there).

Dr. Kevin Bauder Interviewed on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism

~ Bob Hayton

My friend, Scott Oakland, recently interviewed Dr. Kevin Bauder who was a contributing author to Four Views on The Spectrum of Evangelicalism (Zondervan, 2011). You can download the interview from Scott’s ReformedCast.com. I’ll be listening to this interview this week. I really enjoyed the book and especially Dr. Bauder’s chapter.

More IFB Abuse in the News

~ Bob Hayton ~ 13 Comments

This April, some of you know that ABC News’ 20/20 program did an hour long special on the Independent Fundamental Baptist church movement and repeated allegations of sexual abuse — focusing in on a case that happened in Concord, New Hampshire at a church pastored at the time by Chuck Phelps. You can read the posts I did as a follow up to that report, here.

Well, I just learned that CNN’s 360 program with Anderson Cooper has been running a series entitled “Ungodly Discipline”. In their first hour long show on Thursday 9/1, they boomeranged off the sad case of a couple who beat their seven year old daughter to death following the principles from Michael and Debi Pearl’s book To Train Up a Child (a book I was encouraged to purchase at my fundamentalist college). This couple literally spanked the child for seven hours with small breaks for bathroom and prayer. Then the show interviewed the Pearls about their book and their take on spanking. The president of the Bible College I attended was then quoted in a sermon of his on spanking, and Jocelyn Zichterman (who was instrumental in the ABC News program) was interviewed. Next, there was a segment on the alleged abuse cases at Hephzibah House, a home for troubled girls in Indiana. Finally, a closing segment interviewed Bruce Feiler (author of several books explaining evangelical culture) and Jeffrey Toobin (the legal consultant for the show) on how much leeway parents have in spanking their children, legally today.

I wanted to share the videos here and begin discussing the tragedy of such physical abuse perpetrated in the name of the Lord among hyper-fundamentalist Christians. I want to look further at the topic of spanking, and what we are supposed to do about these kinds of cases. I think the time for hiding behind a desire not to spread misinformation and stretched-truths is behind me. Enough has been said and shared that the stories are quite believable. And at the very least those who are alleged to be promoting this kind of physical abuse need to stand up and face the music. They should defend what they are doing by the Bible and distance themselves from this pattern of abuse. And if they don’t, we’ll have the confirmation we need of the many stories we’ve heard. People need to be warned, and enough is enough.

So watch the four segments below (we’ll treat the Hephzibah House segment on its own post). I have learned that another episode is planned that focuses in directly on my alma mater, Fairhaven Baptist College. That show is to air Thursday, 9/22. I’ll be following it closely, but from some of the stories I have read over the last few months, I’m not surprised. In fact, I hope the truth comes out, and that the many who are being misled and harmed by the leadership (whether intentionally or not), will be awakened to evil that has been allowed to flourish.

UPDATE: since this was hard to load for some people, I have just included links to the individual video segments that you can watch on CNN.

part 1

part 2

part 3

Concluding interview.

After watching these videos you may want to check out Mike Durning’s helpful summary and description of the show along with his take on it, posted at Sharper Iron.

Kevin Bauder’s Eight Characteristics of Hyper-Fundamentalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 72 Comments

A new book forthcoming from Zondervan includes a chapter from Dr. Kevin Bauder of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis. I won’t talk about the book other than to mention its title, and that it is worth getting! The book is Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, edited by Collin Hansen and Andrew Naselli.

I’m still only about half-way through a galley copy of this book, but my eyes lit up when I came across Bauder’s characteristics of hyper-fundamentalism. I think he has captured lightning in a bottle with this list of descriptors, since for a very long time I’ve struggled to pinpoint the cross-over line from reasonable fundamentalism to fundamentalism run wild.

I just have to share Bauder’s eight characteristics of hyper-fundamentalism with you, but I strongly encourage you to get the book and read his entire essay. This quotation is from a pre-published version of the book so it may diverge in part from the final published product.

————————

First, hyper-fundamentalists often understand fundamentalism in terms of loyalty to an organization, movement, or even leader. They equate the defense of the faith with the prosperity of their organization or its leader. Someone who criticizes or contradicts it is subjected to censure or separation.

Second, hyper-fundamentalists sometimes adopt a militant stance regarding some extrabiblical or even antibiblical teaching. [He sites KJV-onlyism as an example.] …When individuals become militant over such nonbiblical teachings, they cross the line into hyper-fundamentalism.

Third, hyper-fundamentlists understand separation in terms of guilt by association. To associate with someone who holds any error constitutes an endorsement of that error….

Fourth, hyper-fundamentalists are marked by an inability to receive criticism. For them, questioning implies weakness or compromise. Any criticism — especially if it is offered publicly — constitutes an attack….

A fifth characteristic of hyper-fundamentalism is anti-intellectualism. Some hyper-fundamentalists view education as detrimental to spiritual well-being…. Colleges, when they exist, are strictly for the purpose of practical training.

Sixth, hyper-fundamentalists sometimes turn nonessentials into tests of fundamentalism. For example, some hyper-fundamentalists assume that only Baptists should be recognized as fundamentalists…. One’s fundamentalist standing may be judged by such criteria as hair length, musical preferences, and whether one allows women to wear trousers.

Seventh, hyper-fundamentalists occasionally treat militant political involvement as a criterion for fundamentalist standing. During the 1960s and 1970s, anticommunism was a definitive factor for some fundamentalists. Its place has now been taken by antiabortion and antihomosexual activism. Most fundamentalists do agree about these issues, but hyper-fundamentalists make militant activism a necessary obligation of the Christian faith.

Eight and last, hyper-fundamentalists sometimes hold a double standard for personal ethics. They see themselves engaged in an ecclesiastical war, and they reason that some things are permissible in a warfare that would not be permissible in ordinary life. They may employ name-calling, half-truths, and innuendo as legitimate weapons. They may excuse broken promises and political backstabbing.

Hyper-fundamentalism takes many forms, including some that I have not listed. Nevertheless, these are the forms that are most frequently encountered. When a version of fundamentalism bears one or more of these marks, it should be viewed as hyper-fundamentalist…

Hyper-fundamentalism is not fundamentalism. It is as a parasite on the fundamentalist movement. For many years it was simply a nuisance, largely ignored by mainstream fundamentalists. Ignoring the problem, however, permitted it to grow. While statistics are not available, hyper-fundamentalists now constitute a significant percentage of self-identified fundamentalists, perhaps even a majority. They have become the noisiest and often the most visible representatives of fundamentalism. They may be the only version of fundamentalism that many people ever see.

–Excerpted from Kevin Bauder’s chapter on Fundamentalism, in Four Views of the Spectrum of Evangelicalism (Zondervan, 2011).

————————

Let me know what you think. Doesn’t Bauder nail it with this description? I think so.

How Do You Define Fundamentalism?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 16 Comments

So how do you define Fundamentalism?

Which of the following definitions seems correct to you? Which one raises your eyebrows?

1) Fundamentalism is a movement of likeminded people and churches who “still cling to the great fundamentals and who mean to do battle royal” against theological liberalism. (quote from Curtis Lee Laws in 1920)

2) Fundamentalism is strict adherence to specific, fundamental, theological doctrines typically in reaction against Modernist theology.

3) The word fundamental means, one who holds to the original faith and practice of a movement…. A fundamental Baptist church is a church whose faith and practice goes back to 31 A.D. to Jesus. You can be a fundamental Methodist and go back to Wesley. You can be a fundamental Presbyterian and go back to Calvin or Zwingli. You can be a fundamental Lutheran and go back to Luther. You can be a fundamental Catholic and go back to Constantine, but you cannot be a real Bible fundamentalist unless you go back to Jesus. (quote from Jack Hyles taken from his book The Church)

4) Fundamentalism is “a combination of psuedo-religious legalism with endless man-made rules given Ten Commandment-status, religious hypocrisy, extreme sectarianism, religious pride, and pervasive intellectual, ecclesiastic, ethical corruption and dishonesty all ruled over by a few men who embodied the worst qualities of the original Pharisees and whose teachings and actions cannot be questioned.” (quote from this anti-fundamentalist blog)

The fundamentalism I identify with is #1 or #2 above. I abhor the #4 type. In my experience, however, the #4 type is most pervasive and most common. The #3 mentality is also common among fundamental Baptists. They have an exclusive hold on the truth, or so they think. Check out this website for another example of this thinking. I am suspicious of this #3 mentality, but many good people are caught up in that kind of thinking.

Alright, what about you? What is your take on these four definitions of fundamentalism? Do you have a better definition? Join the discussion below.