Are we in bondage to the "liberty" that is found in Christ?
Are we in bondage to the "liberty" that is found in Christ?
Weird question I know, but try and follow...
Take me for example. I don't drink alcohol. What does that make me?
Well, I've heard:
-Legalist
-Teetotaler
-Too-religious
-A Catholic in denial
-A misguided Southern Baptist
-A judgmental, high and mighty hypocrite
-and many others...
But is that true? Does abstaining from alcohol make me a legalist, and so on? And do I hurt my Christian witness by refusing to exercise my Christian liberty to drink?
I say today: No, No, and NO!
Frankly, I'm tired of being philosophically slapped around by those Christians who feel called to consume a 'cold one'. I do not. And attacking my decision on the basis of Christian liberty is a pitiful attempt at good doctrine. Christian liberty is just that - liberty. A sinner in bondage to his sin is set free by the blood of Jesus Christ. But what is this sinner free from? And perhaps, just as importantly,...what is he set free 'unto'?
Every election year, I hear the familiar tag line: "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain." Is that so? Well, tell that to every single one of the founding fathers. None of those men voted for the King of England - and yet by their complaints and Declaration[s] of Independence, we have a country today. Tell that to the millions of women who could not vote before the mid-20th century, and the millions of black Americans that could not vote for the majority of our nation's history. Did they have no right to complain? They did, and they do.
And what about us today? What does it mean to have the right to vote? Countless men and women have fought and died so that we could enjoy this right, right? Wrong. Last time I checked, there weren't too many American wars fought over universal suffrage at the ballot box. Voting is a right, but not a command, nor a compulsory law - rather it is a choice. Not only between candidates, but also between voting altogether. Now, don't get me wrong, I think people should vote - and I vote every chance I get...but it is a choice. The choice to vote is just as viable as the choice to abstain...
Did you catch that parallel? We are at liberty to vote. Not forced into the voting booth at the end of an AK47, but informed with times, registration drives, and candidate forums - and then allowed the opportunity. Men can choose to vote, and like the word liberty implies, they can choose not too. Why is it then, when our brothers and sisters in Christ choose not to drink alcohol they are labeled, maligned, and counted as blind religionists? We think that a reason must immediately be brought forth to validate their choice, and proof-texts must quickly be offered to bolster their cause. This is sinful. We indeed, try to bind their consciences with our own, and our views on what liberty means. And frankly, we've got it all wrong...
If Christian liberty is what it claims to be (and I believe it is), God's grace DOES NOT demand of us to use alcohol. One is not a legalist who uses his Christ-given liberty to abstain from liquor, nor should he be labeled as one. Christians are just as much at liberty to drink, as they are to never drink a drop in their lives. Take heed that your liberty is not used to judge another man's conscience? 1 Corinthian 10:29. A man can enjoy the liberty that is in Christ, just as much with a drink in his hand, as he can without one.
Galatians 5:13
"For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another."
Give me liberty, and give me Life,
BH
posted by Brotherhank at 12:36 PM
4 Comments:
Bro. Ben,
I'm not out to name names here, and I am unclear about the consequence of identifying specific people on the underlying argument - the passive exercise of Christian liberty in regards to alcohol.
The majority of my interactions with this question have come from outside of the baptist bubble. Abstaining from alcohol seems to be the butt of many baptist/legalistic jokes, and I fail to see the humor, nor theological backing for either.
It is almost as if being Southern Baptist and not drinking, guarantees that you are in some way legalistic - at least some eyes. You almost HAVE to have another reason, other than conscience, to satisfy their inquiries. And that, quite frankly, perturbs me...
Hope this helps.
Bro. Ben,
The aforementioned experiences are real. I assure you that I have better things to do with my time than argue against fake stances, and artificial conclusions...like study and sleep...lol.
The primary thrust of this post however, is not in defense of my own personal decision to abstain, but rather to validate my brothers and sisters, in their similar choices. I find it very difficult, especially for so-called "baby" Christians in their college years to make the choice to abstain from alcohol, and not draw out the inference of legalism. In many circles, it seems to be a much more liberating choice to drink in moderation, than not to drink at all. And that's totally "misses the mark" of what the term "liberty" means in the first place.
I do not feel as if Christians in general, and the SBC in specific do a decent job of explaining that there is liberty in refusing to drink. The connotation seems always comes out as legalistic.
Of course, I am not blind to the strikingly legalistic amendment by this year's SBC in Greensboro. However, I don't hold to the logic that all who identify themselves as Southern Baptist are then automatically legalists - and chiefly in the sense of a personal decision to abstain in obedience to their faith. I'm sure we can both name plenty of SBC'ers that hold to NO sense of legalism whatsoever, be it in alcohol or something totally different. I know baptists that drink like a fish. Should we go take away their SBC ID card? And since we've already succumbed to our fate - meet me on Sunday, so we can start counting our steps, and leaving our oxen unyoked...
I do agree with you, that for the most part, Christians will respect one's decision to abstain from alcohol. But (to use words that I abhor), I am not only advocating tolerance of not drinking, but rather a full acceptance of it's faithful adherence to 'biblicity'...hehe.
I think the Church today has put too much emphasis on an ACTIVE display of Christian liberty, and far too little on the PASSIVE exercise of it, which is just as viable.
Bro. Ben-
Perhaps I am mistaken. I fail to see where I have given the SBC the power to speak FOR me. It speaks for itself, and for all who voted in favor of that resolution. I have never claimed, nor do I intend to begin (as the papists do) to laud the infallibility of any church body, or convention. And no convention that I am aware of, has the power to usurp my own personal responsibility, and wield it as it pleases.
The SBC can pretend that it has the power to legislate conscience all it wants, but that does not change the clear and underlying fact that NO church "body" is given the authority to become the representative of any individual believer, except for the "body" of Jesus Christ.
I can see good reason to identify with the leadership of the SBC, as just that - leadership. But I do not see the logic, nor theological warrant that conventions and resolutions such as that on alcohol are spoken "ex cathedra"...
I fail to identify as well, with the reasoning that we should resign to our legalistic fate, and go down with the metaphorical SBC ship. If we look towards the decisions of Frank Page for our conscience sake, we may have good reason to be alarmed. However, we do not. He is the president of a fallible convention. A man of dust, like the entirety of the rest of the convention. Their words, and edicts have no power to bind men's souls or bound men's consciences...nor should they be intended too...
Bro. Ben,
Take my last response with a grain of salt...
I feel as if it comes off as quite arrogant, pompous, and blind...(all prime qualities of a Southern Baptist, mind you...lol).
Your insight is greatly appreciated, and always enlightening. Forgive my rash nature.
And thank you for being real.
-BH
Post a Comment
<< Home