One of "Those" Scenes

I remember watching this particular scene as a little boy with my grandfather, and thinking that there was something more profound and transcendent about the "Good" even though the personification of it was "killed" - there was a lesson, of some sort, still taught. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So_3INx8Tvk

Hanukkah Song

This helped me to get through my sophomore year of high school. Yes, I am hoarse. Yes, I just woke up. Yes, I missed a few chords and screwed up some words - I did it for a friend - just go with it.

The inevitable...

I imagine that it had to happen sooner or later. I shaved my head - and kept the beard. I had bought into the false dichotomy that it could only be one or the other.

Now, of course, I would rather have hair past my shoulders. That is actually my preference. But it will not be a reality, as my hair has thinned and I refuse to play the games of denial that result in comical hairstyles and loss of money to ridiculous hair products.

The irony is that my wife is thankful that my hair has thinned because it forces my hand. She prefers the current look, and yet the only reason I do it, is because I must. Oh well, it worked out for her. It seems as though I must make Lev. 13:40 my own.

However, I do have something to look forward to. If the beard goes all white, that may look distinguished.

Thanksgiving and what should be (or not).

Today is Thanksgiving.  I am one of those that complain constantly (or at least I feel that way).  However, this is also one of those general presuppositions that we, as humans, hold.  When we complain or are aggravated, we have this assumption that things are not as they should be.  But the problem is that in order to go about complaining, we are holding the world and our circumstances to a Standard of some sort.  But of course, this does not exist. There is no Standard. Reality just is. Whatever is is.  Now, of course, you can want it to be another way, but that does not mean that it logically follows that it should be some other way.  Of course not. It can't be. What is just is. The Universe (or reality) has no moral obligation to you (or anyone else) to be some other way, a better way. You are appealing to a Standard that is not there. You simply desire for some other way, hence your complaining, is just that - a desire. Nothing more. Nothing less. There is no morality to it. Now some would say that, "Of course there is a standard - my own personal standard." But the response is, "So"?  There is no obligation for the Universe to adhere to your standard.  Of course, that does not mean that you can't be upset that the circumstances that surround you don't match your standard, but you must realize that what is just is. It's not supposed to be any other way.  And that is what aggravates you. You think that it ought to be another way.  No it doesn't.  It just is. You must realize that your standard is at best arbitrary, and at worst imaginary. Who, or what, cares about your standard? What about my standard, or his standard, or her standard? What if they conflict with one another. Well, if there is no real Standard, other than the one we make up, then might makes right.  I hope you workout everyday. I do.

Or, there could really be a Standard that we all recognize. There could be a Standard, that to which we believe reality should adhere.  I believe that there is.  The reverse of complaining is thankfulness. I am thankful to Him, today. Now, my daily exercise regimen may serve another purpose. I'm glad. There is probably someone that is stronger - but now that doesn't mean his standard can be made "right".  I'm thankful for what is displayed on this video. It's a good one.

Genius.

I'm reading a little Clive Staples (C.S. Lewis).  I was going to write a little remark after "Clive Staples" demeaning those that might know the ol' bean by his first and middle name, but seeing as how you cannot read my body language, I would have come across as a jackass. 

Anyway, the man is brilliant.  I just looked over at A-bomb and said that, "The mark of a real genius is not a man that constantly speaks over every one's head while they all look around to see if anyone else understands, but the man that can communicate an in-depth message, unbelievable insight, and penetrating  thoughts to a child, laymen, or classic idiot.  Then, of course, he can turn and carry on another conversation where nobody, in fact, understands what he is saying. That is a real genius." That is what I said to A-bomb.

Don't get me wrong, I believe Mere Christianity to be great and all, but have you ever read The Abolition of Man or Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism? When I was 18 or 19 I read Mere Christianity.  And right after I picked up a copy of the latter and had to do the 'read the page over again' technique.  There is much more, but I will not go into all his work right now.  Right now, I want you to read how he trashes the literary criticisms of the literary critics. I think it is funny. So should you. I did not to plan to blog about this. Modern Theology And Biblical Criticism (Fern Seed And Elephants)  

Drums, Money, and Rust.

My wife and I managed to fall victim to some of life's circumstances.  In a nutshell, I had to get an additional job. Bummer.  However, the good news is that if one would have to acquire another job, then I have quite possibly landed the best additional job possible - playing in a band.
    I used to play in a band years ago.  But the fact is I haven't touched a set of drums in 6 years. How does that even happen? How in the world do you go from playing in a band for 7 years to not even touching a set for over half a decade? I tell you how it happens. You get married and have kids - so you learn to play the acoustic guitar. That's how it happens.  Anyway, one of us had to get another job and naturally I would feel like a terd if my wife had to do it... So we began to pray about it (yes, I'm one of "those") and a few weeks later a guy approached me at a local football game and asked if I would be interested in playing the drums for his band.  He said that it would be a great way to provide some extra income if I happen to be in that type of circumstance.  At first, I thought that I may have left the baby monitor on when I was praying about the situation and somehow the audio went through his T.V.  Then I thought that probably didn't happen. Besides, I guess he probably would have began the conversation with something like, "Hey, the other day I was watching T.V. and...." but he didn't do that. Oh, and I usually don't pray out-loud while kneeling in front of the baby monitor.
    I found a guy that donated almost an entire kit for my new pursuit. That was a big deal, too.  Remember, if we were in the position to just buy some drums, we probably wouldn't be asking the Almighty for job opportunities.  I'd better wrap this story up. I wanted to see just how much I've digressed over the years, so I pulled out the camera and hit the red button... my, oh my.   I threw the kit together and started to take a few whacks and quickly realized just how much rust accumulates on a Russ over 6 years.  It's a pretty substantial amount, to say the least.   Take notice that I am wearing "ear-muffs" as I play.  The drums are just too flippin' loud - and I'm a drummer.  If that's not a sign of turning old and boring, then I don't know what is.  And please keep my 8 month in your prayers - the drums are in her room (as the video shows).

Christianity and Booze.

This is a paper I wrote, and I just threw it up here... because I don't want to cut the grass.

There are more than a few topics within the walls of Christianity that cause debate and points of contention. However, in Orthodox Christian circles relatively few waves are made in relation to the united stance against Legalism (in this paper the term Orthodox will refer to Fundamental Christian belief; not particular denominations of Eastern Orthodoxy). The collective voice of all Orthodox Christians, along with the Apostle Paul, denounce Legalism as an enemy of the Faith, promotion of a works-based-faith, and a death-knell to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.  Yet, one particular view concerning one common substance has slipped under the radar and into the teachings of many contemporary leaders within Christianity - Teetotalism. Christian leaders should cease promotion of the teetotal stance against alcohol, as it is unhistorical within Christianity, extra-biblical, and promotes legalism. Moreover, the teetotal stance clashes with historic Christian thinkers in that their views clearly reveal that no thing, in and of itself is evil.

CHRISTIANITY AND ALCOHOL: ONE CHALLENGE TO A LEGALISTIC STANCE WITHIN CONTEMPORY CHRISTIAN TEACHING

A Perspective From Great Christian Thinkers

   Many modern Christians are uninformed. These brothers and sisters clash with the great majority of Christian leadership and thought throughout the past few centuries concerning the proper Christian perspective on alcohol. Many of these moderns have falsely believed that one who is serious in his devotion to Christ, or all things spiritual, would of course hold a dim view of enjoying a beverage that contained the substance. But this notion is at complete odds with some of the most gifted of all men devoted to Christ. Consider the stance of intellectual giant, C.S. Lewis, when providing his view on the new phenomenon of complete abstinence from alcohol:

Temperance] now usually means teetotalism. But                  [originally], it meant nothing of the sort. Temperance referred not specially to drink, but to all pleasures; and it meant not abstaining but going the right length and no further. ... Mohammedanism, not Christianity,is the teetotal religion.[1]

Lewis provides an excellent point. Overall, Lewis reveals that "required" teetotalism is actually against Christian teaching. Here, we see that he makes the case that no thing, in and of itself, is evil. It is only the perversion of it that is wrong for the Christian. Supposedly, if one should reference the Scripture that, "It is better not to... drink wine if it causes a brother or sister to fall." from Rom 14.21[2], then the point by Lewis is lessened. Or is it? Lewis then goes on to clarify his point further and against this objection by actually agreeing with it, but placing it in its proper perspective:

 Of course it may be the duty of a particular Christian, or of any Christian, at a particular time, to abstain from strong drink, either because he is the sort of man who cannot drink at all without drinking too much, or because he is with people who are           inclined to drunkenness and must not encourage them by drinking himself. But the whole point is that he is abstaining, for a good reason, from something which he does not condemn and which he likes to see other people enjoying. One of the marks of a certain type of      bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself  without wanting every one else to give it up. That is      not the Christian way. An individual Christian may see fit to give up all sorts of things for special reasons—marriage, or meat, or beer, or the cinema; but the moment he starts saying the things are bad in themselves, or looking down his nose at other people who do use them, he has taken the wrong turning.[3]

Under the close scrutiny of Scripture, this view that is held by Lewis, is correct. Lewis is right for several reasons.  Scripture never condemns alcohol itself, only the abuse of it. Also, based on Scripture, it is appropriate that a believer abstain if it may cause others, young or weak in the faith, to stumble. But ironically, and oddly enough, it is the Christian leadership that have bought into the deception and/or continue to perpetuate the view that alcohol is wrong in and of itself.

   Interestingly, another major, even monumental figure within Christian thought has weighed-in on the subject at hand. G.K. Chesterton has journeyed through the pit of atheism to a full, robust faith in Christ. It is obvious that the important matters and fundamentals of Christianity have been pondered, questioned, and held close to his mind and heart. As a result, Chesterton, being in the position of a very outspoken Christian, knew the importance of proper representation of Christ to his culture, and he obviously thought teetotalism to be very low on the list. His own perspective is in close relation to that of Lewis. His view can be gleaned from the famous statement, "The proper form of thanks to it [alcohol] is some form of humility and restraint: we should thank God for beer and burgundy by not drinking too much of them."[4]

Here, it is most obvious that Chesterton is displaying the same attitude of Lewis. Namely, that the substance itself is just as all other things of Creation. This means that it was given for enjoyment and pleasure and the proper respect should be shown by forbidding anything other than Christ to control us. The perversion of a thing lies within sinful humanity or sinful personal agents. It does not lie within the thing itself. It is humanity/sinful agents that take things, given in Creation by God, and perverts or misuses them in ways that are evil. Take Chesterton again:

Never drink because you need it, for this is rational drinking, and the way to death and hell.  But drink because you do not need it, for this is irrational drinking, and the ancient health of the world.[5]

   Here, Chesterton switches gears. In this quotation he reminds the reader that as long as a thing (alcohol in this case) has its proper place, then it is not in control of the believer. Of course, this should always be the case. In other words, the point is powerful in the sense that a thoughtful, articulate, and devout Christian makes a clear statement that the drink itself, is a good thing. It is the dependence upon and abuse of such things, which is wrong. It is not very often that one comes across respectable Christian leaders in the contemporary age that would dare risk making such statements like the above made by Chesterton and Lewis. Accordingly, why is this the case? Right-hearted, but wrong-headed brothers and sisters have often affected the vibrant, liberating, and life-giving faith of Christianity. Christian leaders (as all Christians) must always take seriously the call of a proper behavior and witness to those around us. Sadly, Christians, in an effort to do right, mistake things, simple substances or objects, as if they themselves are responsible for evil. As a result, the Christian community is affected. These two Christian men were prominent figures in the late 19th and early 20th century who were unaffected by such legalism. As the above quotes reveal, they were unashamedly thankful for all things God has given mankind to enjoy. Yet, both also made very clear that the proper way in which we give thanks for such gifts is to show humility through moderate use of them.  In one fell swoop, these men condemn using any alcoholic beverage as something to be used for a restoration to normalcy (dependence) and suggests that it was simply given as something akin to candy - a treat, an enjoyable side to add to an already pleasant time. A book alongside the fireplace comes to mind, or perhaps participating in an enjoyable conversation with one's spouse.

   It should also be mentioned at this point that this view does not allow for a substance such as marijuana or any other mind-altering substance, as some may try to charge. Alcohol, unlike marijuana or cocaine, can be enjoyed (such as a single glass of wine with a meal) without extending the effects to mind or mood altering states, just as Scripture prohibits. However, the entire purpose of a drug such as marijuana or cocaine is to alter the mind and mood to an irrational or unreasoning state of being. It may be said here that most people consume alcohol for the purpose of reaching these same states of being. Most people also desire monetary gain for their own selfish purposes, but the problem is the person - not the money.  This is prohibited by Scripture, and is the exact reason as to why over-indulgence or drunkenness with alcohol is wrong in Scripture. In fact, this view against drunkenness, not enjoying a specific beverage, is what the Reformers, Fathers of Faith in this country, and specifically the Puritans have held. Certainly the "overly-pious" Puritans would never partake in Alcohol? The answer is assuredly affirmative.

View of Teetotalism From Recent Christian History

   The Puritans, of course, are among the first inhabitants from Europe to establish permanent settlement in the Americas.  Aside from that fact, they are also known for their sincere devotion to Christ and the Christian faith. Often times, the Puritans are viewed as overtly legalistic, holding to standards that a "liberated" Christian of today would never be held to. Just the opposite may be the case. The Puritans enjoyed life and gifts of God just as much, possibly more, than many Christians of today. Adrian Weimer, in his review of "Polishing The Puritan Image", states that, "Puritans enjoyed sex, alcohol, attractive clothing, music, and dancing; it was excess that they denounced."[6] He then goes on to say, "They learned from Reformed theology that creation is good and that sin results not from its use but from its abuse."[7] Weimer then drops this bombshell on the current view of these Christian predecessors. "A Massachusetts man was excommunicated from the Boston church for withholding sexual favors from his wife."[8] How does that square with the prudish image that the modern culture has placed upon the Puritans? One must confess that it simply will not fit the false mold. 

Already, it is seen that much of what modern Westerners hold as a truthful representation to the Puritan image is false. The proof that actual, sincere, devout, Christians have enjoyed alcohol throughout the history of the Church (not meaning a "Christian country" but actual sincere Christians themselves) is becoming apparent. The view that was held by the unquestionably "pious and uptight" Puritans on alcohol is in direct contradiction to the view held by many devout Christians today. Imagine the most conservative pastor announcing from his pulpit this quotation, "Drink is... a good creature of God, and to be received with thankfulness, but the abuse of drink is from Satan; the wine is from God, but the drunkard is from the Devil."[9]  This direct quotation from a sermon by Increase Mather is astounding to many modern Christian ears.  One would be very hard pressed to find a current Christian leader as conservative and orthodox in their doctrine as this Puritan pastor and president of Harvard, yet be so opposed to his sentiment on alcohol. Which group seems to be more concerned with an uptight legalism? Do the moderns? Or do the Puritans? At least on this point, it cannot be said of the Puritans.

The point does not stop here, however, and goes further back into the Christian past. Most Protestants, who owe their spiritual heritage to the Reformers, are surprisingly ignorant of the views of the very men they hold in such high regard. In his work, A Sober Assessment of Reformational Drinking, Jim west makes the powerful observation that:

As the Protestant Reformation began, the Reformers from [Martin] Luther and [John] Calvin to [Ulrich] Zwingli and [John] Knox strongly supported the  enjoyment of wine as a biblical blessing, and indeed      Calvin's annual salary in Geneva included seven  barrels of wine.[10]

Could one imagine the front-men, theologians, and leading voices of today's Christianity not only endorsing the proper enjoyment of alcohol, but receiving it as part of their very salary?  If this were to be the case, it would very likely squelch the nonsense teaching from many pastors concerning teetotalism, or it would begin its very own reformation of sorts - a reformation of Christianity that could do nothing but promote legalism within its own ranks. Though this would seem be an obvious move into legalism, and a stark contrast to the Apostle Paul's preaching of the Gospel, there have been Christians that have attempted to avoid the problem altogether with the charge that alcoholic beverages in biblical times were technically non-existent. If true, this would be a powerful argument indeed.

Teetotalist Teaching is Unbiblical and Promotes Legalism

There are those that would most likely argue that it is not legalistic to teach what has always been forbidden in Scripture. For instance, if the wine in biblical times really possessed no alcohol, then of course one might have a case against drinking any alcoholic beverage today. It would still go to show as to why one could not partake in any alcoholic beverage seeing that the only command is to refrain from drunkenness. However, if those that would teach such a view were shown to be incorrect (that the persons of Scripture actually did enjoyed the beverages) then the only reason left to teach teetotalism is a promotion of legalism.  Let reader grant the argument so that it may be engaged.

Often times, an argument is advanced against the stance that Alcohol is acceptable for a Christian by attempting to pull the rug out from under the position that the Christian texts speak positively about the substance. The tactic used is the charge that wine in Scripture is nothing like the wine of today. For instance, respected academic, Norman Geisler states that, "What the Bible frequently meant by wine was basically purified water."^[11]  Of course, Geisler's argument assumes that because the alcohol content was possibly weaker, and contemporary wine is stronger, we should abstain from drinking.^[12]  However, this point is actually irrelevant to the argument. The admonition from Scripture, as a whole, is that one should not get drunk.  Even if the substance happened to be less potent than the current variety, it is easily seen that that particular point is a non sequitur - it simply does not follow.  A similar argument would be something akin to comparing the sharp edge of biblical knife blades to current knife blades, then charging that modern humanity should abstain from using modern cutlery because the current blades are more sharp and dangerous. Just as the command from Exodus 20 is centered on protecting others from murder and not the potency of a particular weapon,^[13] it is the same Scriptures that are concerned with the sin of drunkenness, not with the potency of the drink.

 Though this may be a response that should end that argument, eminent biblical scholar at Dallas Theological Seminary, Daniel B. Wallace is not ready to concede the point of watered-down wine. First, in his article, The Bible and Alcohol, Wallace states, "Some take the words for wine to mean ‘grape juice.’ If this were so, then why would there be prohibitions against drunkenness? One cannot get drunk on grape juice."^[14]  This is a humorous, yet strong point. It does seem rather foolish to warn against practical impossibilities. Wallace goes on to make the case that Christ made up to one hundred and eighty gallons of wine at the wedding feast, when, according to the verbiage and the context, the partakers were clearly intoxicated.^[15] Of course, this is not to argue that it is acceptable to become drunk, only to argue that simple grape juice is not what was present. Wallace says that the same Greek and Hebrew terms that are used in the neutral passages that refer to wine are identical to those that refer to abusing it for drunkenness. Obviously then, the writers are not referencing two different substances.[16] This is undoubtedly a strong remark especially considering that Wallace is elite and almost in a class by himself in relation to his understanding of biblical linguistics.

Now, these are serious considerations that must be dealt with. Yet, Wallace is not finished. He notes that many Christians mistakenly confuse and condemn the abuses of alcohol along with those who are not abusers of the drink.[17] Wallace points out that our "Christian conviction" against alcohol is, "conditioned by our culture... because of the days of Prohibition."[18] And, "Devout Christians in many other countries see not the issue, as we have made it."[19]

We must seek to be biblical, as opposed to going with tradition or an uncritical Christian subculture. Are Christians called to influence culture or submit to its demands era by era? He then says, "Legalism is endemic to human nature, thus we create all sorts of "rules" in contrast to relationship with Christ - because it is easier."[20] In relation to the teaching in Romans 14 about stumbling, Wallace reminds one to realize that the weaker faith is the one that refrains.[21] Yet, the leaders of today, the supposed "strong in the faith" believe the alcohol is wrong in and of itself.

In summation, Wallace adds what he believes are strong words from the Scripture promoting alcoholic beverages. For instance, Wallace says there are at least five passages that infer that a lack of wine is judgment from the Lord, and at least ten passages that speak of wine as a blessing from Him.[22]

Besides, Wallace mentions that, "Jesus could not very well be accused of being a drunkard by sipping on Welch's grape juice."[23] (Of course, He did not abuse it).  If the responsible consumption of some alcoholic beverage is therefore not prohibited in Scripture, but a Christian is taught from the leadership nothing but total abstinence is acceptable, the question is: How is this not complete, unbiblical, legalism, and a compromise to the teaching of Scripture? This question has no satisfactory answer from those that teach complete abstinence for all Christians.

Conclusion

For far too long the people of Christ have allowed the Enemy to rob mankind of many wonderful gifts that the Creator has given them to enjoy. The history of the world is composed of is hardship and hurt. In contrast, the Father has given many beautiful and wonderful aspects of life to enjoy while here. Why allow the Enemy of the soul to claim some of these gifts as his own? Would it be allowed with beautiful music because of those that would use it for inglorious purposes? Would it be allowed with sex because of those that would abuse the gift? In their proper context, these are glorious things. They are blessings. Christ the Creator makes and creates, only sinful agents use gifts and talents and pervert them for ignoble purposes. Sinful humanity will take fire, given to warm the food and the body, only to turn and torch their neighbor's home. Sinful humanity will take sexual intimacy, given to share a wonderful expression of love with a spouse, only to use it for blind sensuality and lust. Sinful humanity will take music, given to engage every possible emotion to touch the Creator's face, only to turn and use it to lift up some human in idolatry. Christ alone is the maker of all wonderful things. The enemy cannot, and has not created anything. All he can do is twist them, adding his perverse spin. Christians must realize that this is the distinction between theirs and other faiths. The Christian confesses that, if there is a problem, it lies with him.

Dan Cool, Christian addict counselor and recovering alcoholic for over a decade and half, understands this very well. In a personal interview he states that:

Drinking alcohol is no more a problem than eating, sleeping, or a desire for any other God given instinct.  But when the instinct to eat or drink, for example, turns to gluttony there the Bible speaks  clearly.  When the instinct is being met in a manner short of... sin, it is normal behavior. The Bible does not speak against [sinful] normal behavior.[24]

The task at hand is to follow Scripture. If this means that one should abstain at times, then so be it. However, in following Scripture, one must be true to its teachings. The promotion by Christian leaders of the legalistic and unhistorical, absolute teetotal stance against alcohol is in opposition to this mandate.

---

[1] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 3 ed. (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), 78.

[2] Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from the Zondervan NIV Study Bible, Revised ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2008), page nr.

[3]Ibid,78. Italics mine.

[4] G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (n.p.: Simon & Brown, 2011), 56.

[5] Chesterton, G. K. Heretics. Champaign, Ill: Project Gutenberg, 1990. <http://www.netlibrary.com/urlapi.asp?action=summary&v=1&bookid=1077600>.

[6] Adrian Wiemer, “Polishingthepuritanimage,” Christianity Today.com, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/booksandresources/reviews/polishingthepuritanimage.html?start=1 (accessed March 18, 2011).

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Increase Mather, Wo to drunkards. Two sermons testifying against the sin of drunkenness: wherein the wofulness of that evil and the misery of all that are addicted to ... second edition. [Three lines from Habakkuk]. (Cambridge: Marmaduke Johnson, 1673), page nr..

[10] Jim West, “A Sober Assessment of Reformational Drinking,” Modern Reformation, March-April 2000, page nr. Italics mine.

[11] Geisler, Norman. “A Christian Perspective On Wine Drinking.” Bibliotheca Sacra 139, no. 53 (January 1982): 50.

[12] Ibid,51.

[13] Exod. 20:13

[14] Wallace, Daniel B. “The Bible and Alcohol.” Bible.org. http://bible.org/article/bible-and-alcohol (accessed March 8, 2011).

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18]    Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21]    Romans 14

[22]   Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Dan Cool, interview by the author, February 24, 2011.