Christian Liberty, Giving Offense, and Idolizing the Weaker Brethren (Entire Series)

I'm putting all the posts in this series here, just like my other blog series.

John MacArthur's Wine List

I came across a written outline of a sermon John MacArthur preached a number of years ago about alcohol in the life of the Christian. I heard this sermon on his radio program. In this sermon, he asks eight questions of his listeners in order for them to examine their own lives in light of the bible's teachings about alcohol. I've decided to answer these questions here.

Question #1: Is drinking wine today the same as in Bible times?

I don't know, I wasn't alive then. But if they enjoyed it as much as I do, then praise God.

Question #2: Is drinking wine necessary?

No, but it sure can be a blessing.

Question #3: Is drinking wine the best choice?

No, beer is.

Question #4: Is drinking wine habit forming?

It can be - for some people. It is for me. I have a habit of drinking one beer per day, plus or minus. A little wine (always red) here and there, too.

Question #5: Is drinking wine potentially destructive?

Yes, but so is reading the bible.

Question #6: Is my drinking wine offensive to other Christians?

I don't know, I've never been confronted by somebody who claimed to be offended. I'd hate to think that there are Christians out there who are harboring secret grudges against me for enjoying God's creation, which He pronounced "good," by the way.

Question #7: Will drinking wine harm my Christian testimony?

No, actually it has helped it fairly well.

Question #8: Am I absolutely certain drinking wine is right?

Yes. Hey, "absolutely" is a good word for this question!

Any more questions?

Christian Liberty, Giving Offense, and Idolizing the Weaker Brethren

A few posts ago, I gave my own answers to John MacArthur's questions about alcohol. It is interesting that abstentionsists quite often use the argument that it's best to abstain from alcohol because of the potential to cause a weaker brother to stumble. If that's really biblical, then why don't people like MacArthur abstain from teaching premillenial eschatology? Look at how many end times junkies there are out there who are obsessed with the timing of the end things. The Left Behind insanity is epidemic in evangelical circles. All throughout history, people have sold everything, left families and friends, just because the end was "near." The first church I attended was so busy predicting the end of the world they completely forgot that I needed to be baptized and discipled. People's lives were destroyed because of the fascination of the end.

So, do I condemn people like MacArthur for teaching eschatology? Of course not. He should be teaching eschatology (just not the dispensational pre-mil variety, IMHO!). So, being consistent, people shouldn't teach others to abstain for the sake of weaker brethren. It misses the point. Weaker brothers were those who were newer Christians that associated innocent things with their former idolatry. As just one example, animals were sacrificed to pagan gods, then the meat was sold in the market. Since all meat in the market came from the temple, a new pagan convert might have associated (with good intentions, but not quite accurately) the meat with the idolatry, and become a vegetarian. Christians with strong consciences who knew it was okay to eat meat because the meat was not the idol, belittled them for not being strong in conscience.

Paul's teaching in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 was this: the meat is not the idol, but it can be an idol for an individual. Therefore, the strong shouldn't dismiss the weak as a bunch of wimps because they abstain, and the weak shouldn't judge the strong as idolaters because they partake. So Paul's teaching instructed both groups as to the proper way to live with such matters. His goal was to make each man mature.

But abstentionist teaching has as its conclusion (intended or otherwise) of leaving the weaker brother in his weakness at the expense of the strong. The emphasis is always on exhorting the strong to abstain from a multitude of lifestyle minutiae for the sake of another's (potential) weak conscience, instead of teaching the weak to become mature. The weak are placed up on a pedestal and the strong are told that their lives revolve around the weak. This is an idolatry itself. Which is easier? to teach a majority of people to radically change their lifestyles for the entire history of the future just out of a mere possibility of a weaker brother seeing you? or to give a one hour sermon to instructing the weak? Jesus criticized the Pharisees precisely on this point. They laid intense burdens on men's shoulders but wouldn't lift a finger themselves to help them accomplish it. There is a difference between an offense given and one taken, and I think it's time the church learned the difference.

Christian Liberty, Giving Offense, and Idolizing the Weaker Brethren (Part 2)

Since my last post, I have re-read John MacArthur's wine list more carefully. So many red flags were raised that I can't even remember all of them. I'll start with a general comment about conscience. A common mistake among both sides of the alcohol debate, and in the Christian liberty discussion in general, is in too heavily tying "weak" and "strong" consciences with the terms "abstaining" and "partaking." I think these terms also relate to how persuaded one is in their personal convictions. If one is "fully persuaded", as the apostle Paul says, that he himself shouldn't partake, then his conscience is strong because he won't waver. As an example, if I had lunch with John MacArthur every day for ten years, I might not hesitate to drink a beer every time, because he is so persuaded that he won't drink that my drinking won't be a temptation in the slightest for him to stumble. He has a strong conscience - he's a fifth generation pastor. Additionally, because he knows it's not wrong to drink, he wouldn't be "offended" by my drinking.

When I look at MacArthur's list and compare it with Paul's in Romans 14, I see two opposing ideas in several areas. It is amazing that conspicuously absent from MacArthur's outline are all the scripture references that either commend the drinking of wine or see it as a blessing to man. I find his questions leading, and not objective. They all lead away from alcohol consumption and seem to plant seeds of doubt rather than try to strengthen convictions that are already there. It is a one-sided argument using only half the information.

Although Paul states that "he who doubts is condemned if he eats" (Rom 14:23), he also encourages both the weak and strong by exhorting them both to "be fully convinced in his own mind." (Rom 14:5) One way Paul does this is by relating each one's convictions to the Lordship of Christ in rebuking those who would judge those convictions: "Who are you to judge another? To his own master (this is Christ!) he stands or falls; and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand." (Romans 14:4, emphasis and parenthesis mine) Wow! Christ makes me stand! MacArthur's position seems to be this: "If you're only 95% there in your conviction to drink, I'm certainly not going to be the one to help you gain that 100% mark. I'll either leave you at 95% (which means you need to abstain) or bring you down to zero (which means you need to abstain)."

And this is a terrible position to hold in relating to other believers. I find it to be contemptuous. This is the reason we have so many weak people in the churches and so many that judge wrongly. Pastors refuse to teach the truth and would rather leave people in their weakness and blindness at the expense of those who can actually do something for the kingdom. Parts 3 and 4 are necessary I believe.

Christian Liberty, Giving Offense, and Idolizing the Weaker Brethren (Part 3)

More from John MacArthur's wine list:

Question #7: Will drinking wine harm my Christian testimony?
A. Drinking Among the Saved
Some people think they can better reach out to drinkers if they themselves drink. However Paul said, "Let not ... your good be evil spoken of" (Rom. 14:16). It is possible you can have a pure motive in drinking but it may also work against you because it offends your fellow believers. Drinking might make us more acceptable in some circles, but our lack of concern for fellow Christians would work against any positive witness we might give. If we want to reach people who are not saved, as well as give an encouraging example to those who are, we will not do anything that would cause them to be offended. In my own ministry, I don't want anyone to be disturbed or misled by my actions. I often ask myself, "Will I hurt others with what I am about to do."

First, a few more minor points. It's interesting that MacArthur says that our lack of concern for other believers would work against any positive witness, not might work. How would he know? And how would he know that there are weaker believers in any given situation who would be offended in the first place?

Now to the bigger point. Let's apply his reasoning to a well known drinker, one who drank as a supposed positive testimony to those who watched. This man's name was Jesus. Jesus said,

"For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, 'He has a demon!' The Son of Man has come eating and drinking; and you say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax-gatherers and sinners!' Yet wisdom is vindicated by all her children." Luke 7:33-35 (NASB)

Jesus said He would be vindicated for the wisdom He applied to drinking wine with sinners. If Jesus would be vindicated, and I can drink because the Lord will make me stand, why would anybody question me or try to get me to change my ways? It seems that since Jesus didn't live up to MacArthur's standards, then I better question Him too.

Christian Liberty, Giving Offense, and Idolizing the Weaker Brethren (Part 4)

Revisiting MacArthur's question #7: "...If we want to reach people who are not saved, as well as give an encouraging example to those who are, we will not do anything that would cause them to be offended..."

This requires omniscience on the part of the potential offender. People are so easily offended by everything at all that this idea is totally impossible. I've been in churches where offenses taken by others are numerous and mutually exclusive. To exist, then, would be to offend a Christian.

Christian Liberty, Giving Offense, and Idolizing the Weaker Brethren (Part 5)

The wine list I was using by John MacArthur was actually part 3 of a transcribed sermon or series of sermons. In part 2 of MacArthur's wine list, he deals with his own question #2.

Question #2: Is drinking wine necessary? Because of the lack of fresh water, it was often necessary to drink wine in biblical times... Due to a lack of refrigeration, even wine mixed from the syrup base, if left standing long enough, could ferment. These people had little choice in deciding what to drink...

Let me answer question #2 in a different way. Is drinking wine necessary? Well, yes, actually. Let me explain.

Abstentionists and prohibitionists, in whatever activity they advocate abstaining, often have what I call a low view of God's creation. In the beginning, God created everything, and everything He created (except the eating one specific fruit) was called good by God Himself, and was intended to be used by man. Everything. So God would naturally not only allow, but expect man to use alcohol. Not every man, of course, as other Scriptures attest, within special context, but that this would be the general expectation of normalcy throughout history. And this is indeed what has happened.

The error that abstentionists and prohibitionists (these are usually traits of fundamentalism) make is that they have an inside-out view of God's intent for His creation. Instead of viewing the drinking of alcohol in terms of God's purposes for man and creation, with sin being the abuse thereof, they view God's creation in terms of man's sin, with sin being the use thereof. At their core, their arguments are man centered, and not God centered.

I'll end this part 5 with an admonishment from the apostle Paul against abstentionsim and prohibitionism: "If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" (which all refer to things destined to perish with the using)--in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence." Colossians 2:20-23

Christian Liberty, Giving Offense, and Idolizing the Weaker Brethren (Part 6)

Again from John MacArthur's wine list:

Question #6: Is my drinking wine offensive to other Christians?...In Paul's time drunkenness was commonly associated with pagan religions. Those who came to Christ did not want to eat meat offered to idols (the context of 1 Cor. 8) anymore than they wanted to be looked upon as drinkers...

Yes, Dr. MacArthur, that's just the point. Meat and alcohol were associated with pagan religion. Every piece of meat in the market came from the temple, post-sacrifice. And alcohol was used in drunken sexual orgies as a means to more closely commune with the gods. Drunkenness was a loss of self-control and, combined with sex with temple prostitutes, meant being controlled by the gods. The more drunk, the better the worship.

But today in America, our culture doesn't even come close to resembling what was just everyday life back then. I can't think of any religion that uses drunkenness in their worship of false gods. There might be a few loony groups in Marin County or somewhere, but our Christian heritage still has a great hold in our country. Almost half of Americans regularly attend Christian churches, our presidents have been church goers.

Alcohol isn't associated with pagan idolatry. If anything, it is associated with the objections of legalistic fundamentalism. The pagan concept was eliminating self-control. The biblical concept is that self-control is the fruit of the Spirit. In my view, with some unbelievers in our culture (and even some converts) that have a problem with excess in drinking, we don't need more Christians who preach abstinence (as if that will help anything), but rather ones that can witness a life of self-control through drinking in moderation, giving thanks to God, showing that it is possible to enjoy God's gifts to us without perverting them.

Abstaining from alcohol for the potential sake of others who are truly weak is the exception rather than the rule.

For any continuation of this blog series click here. The reason for this is explained here.