Prohibition season

The Southern Baptist Convention is about to convene, so that means it's time for the prohibitionists (you know: because the SBC is relevant to what's happening today in the English-speaking world) to trot out their amazing and ever-inventive singular vision of moralism. And in that, my friend @hereiblog has engaged in some Twitter apologetics with a fellow who calls himself "SAGordon".

@SAGordon tweeted thus:

Which is a clever approach, right? The Bible offers some warnings about drinking alcohol, but since it never explicitly demands we drink alcohol, we should therefore never touch the stuff.

Clever, but completely wrong.

Are the only two modes of communication from God "command" and "forbid"? What if we tried to form up the Gospel in those terms -- would our prohibitionist (and mostly-anti-calvinist) brothers in Christ accept the definition of the Gospel "the command from God to believe and repent or be damned"? That sounds a lot less like the pleading Christ they champion than I suspect they would be comfortable with -- even if there's not a Calvinist in the universe who would bat an eye at such a definition.

And I say that to say this: while there is no command to drink alcohol in the Bible, there is this:

Praise the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, you are very great; you are clothed with splendor and majesty. He wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters. He makes the clouds his chariot and rides on the wings of the wind. He makes winds his messengers, flames of fire his servants.

... He makes springs pour water into the ravines; it flows between the mountains. They give water to all the beasts of the field; the wild donkeys quench their thirst. The birds of the air nest by the waters; they sing among the branches. He waters the mountains from his upper chambers; the earth is satisfied by the fruit of his work. He makes grass grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate— bringing forth food from the earth: wine that gladdens the heart of man, oil to make his face shine, and bread that sustains his heart.

... How many are your works, O LORD! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures.[from Psa 104]

Which is, of course, not a command to drink wine, right? It's a catalog of the exquisite provisions God has made upon this earth (including the place where we get the title of this blog, fwiw). And what do we find there among the things which the Psalmist exclaims are the works of YHVH which "in wisdom [He] made them all"? Yes: wine.

So it's not a command to drink it: it's an offer to receive it as a blessing. God is saying, "it's a good thing which I give you as a blessing from my wisdom. It's good like oil which you may use as a comfort, and bread to satisfy your hunger. I made it to make your heart happy -- I made it for your sake."

God may be King of Kings and Lord of Lords, but he's not completely emotionless. He's not a stony-faced despot who is only forbidding or commanding. He's also a father who blesses us, and has done things for our sake. Try to work that into your theology regarding good works sometime this month as you wrangle the evils of Calvinism.

And be with the Lord's people in the Lord's house on the Lord's day this weekend. And if you have wine at His table, know that it is because He said that it's a good thing which he made with you in mind.

Paul Washer, too?

So it's not enough to continue to ask about Mark Driscoll's language -- I have a beef with Paul Washer, too?

Actually, what I have a beef with is Paul Washer fanatics, really. Washer is a well-known missionary, and well-respected speaker. He's not a heretic as far as anyone would care to think about it. He's just glum.

On my Facebook yesterday, I said this: "Frank Turk is tired of people tweeting and FB'ing Paul Washer quotes. He's trite and strident, which makes him a little careless."

Here's what I mean by that: there's nothing new in Washer, which of course his fans will say is a mark of his real commitment to being a man of God's word and so on. But there's also very little hopeful in what Washer preaches. You know: when you read the book of Galatians, where Paul is essentailly condemning a whole city of Christians for giving up the Gospel for works, Paul mixes his judgment with encouragement because there is hope in Christ. In fact, the reason why we should not trade the Gospel for works is because there is hope in Christ and not in works. The trajectory of Paul is almost always from our desperate state to hope in Christ because he actually believes in hope and not fear.

Washer rarely gets there -- and it bothers me that his fans enjoy his revivalistic fire and brimstone. It's half the story at best, much like a greeting card. You can get a greeting card with just about any verse of the Bible printed on the inside -- and probably in any English translation you want. But its use of that verse is trite, and sort of tossed off in order to make an emotional appeal. That's how Washer comes across to me -- and frankly, I don't think he means to be that way. I don't think he's trying to be like Finney or any revivalist -- but it turns out that he is. He just ahbors the altar call.

---

UPDATES:

I received a letter from alert reader "LC" (initials only to protect the innocent) with two comments that I thought were cogent and relevant, and I wanted to share them with the rest of you.

[1] She thought the graphic looked like I had put a bull's eye on Paul Washer's face -- which, since it did look like that, is offensive. I used the same filter I have used on almost everyone I have given the "alien/mutant eye" effect to since time immemorial here at the blog, but this one came across wrong. I have changed the graphic to be sensitive that LC's perceptive insight, and I thank LC for it.

[2] I think it's important for everyone to read this statement, which I made in the original post:

But (the greeting card) use of that verse is trite, and sort of tossed off in order to make an emotional appeal. That's how Washer comes across to me -- and frankly, I don't think he means to be that way.

I don't think Paul Washer means to be the way I perceive him. But what is really the motivator for my FB entry and this post is that I think many of his fans prefer him that way. That's how they use his preaching, and I think it is not very productive, or as they say on the respectable blogopshere, "helpful".

It is totally possible to preach repentance in such a way that it overlooks the grace which makes the repentance possible. That kind of preaching is revivalistic, and the people who like that kind of thing always use it that way. I think Paul Washer has preached enough that people who like the revivalistic aspects of some of his preaching have embraced that part of his work, and I think we can all do better.

I hope that clarifies what I'm talking about here. There is no other implication of this matter which I care to endorse.

Weekend Red Meat

Yeah: OK. Here's the thing. I made a comment on someone's facebook page, and here's the thread:

For the record, names have been defaced to protect the unintentionally-involved.

So let's begin here: Mark Driscoll's talk at Advance09 was good, yes? Anyone want to say it was bad? I didn't think so. It's a good talk.

So what's the bee in my bonnet already? Can't I just let it go -- his people go his way and I go find me a nice reformed baptist cell that listens to John MacArthur podcasts and be done?

Yeah, no. I prolly could have let it go if the facebooker after me hadn't jumped to the "Mark Driscoll is a humble and contrite man" button, and then the last facebooker asking what exactly I meant.

Here's what I meant: I think it takes a significant amount of some version of what his second talk was decrying to give that talk when he has yet to actually make any serious or significant repentance for the long litany of vile talk which issues from his pulpit.

"'Issues'?" comes the defender of Pastor Driscoll. "'Issues'? You mean 'issued', cent: when was the last time you heard any vile talk from the pulpit of Mars Hill?"

That's amusing, yo. So without issuing any apologies for all the vile talk in the past, say, 18 months, he goes about 90 days without a dirty joke or a scatalogical reference, and we call that "repentance"?

I think we can call Pat Robertson repentant of being a false prophet if that's the standard. I'd like to hear comments about that.

In fact, I insist. This'll be the post for the week here at the blog unless someone says something utterly stupendous in the meta.

UPDATED: Other comments on this matter bubbling up at johnMark's blog.

Hat's off

A while ago I used Desiring God as an example of bad form in podcast production.

Yeah, well, they're supplying the audio for the Advance09 conference this week, and can I say that this may be the best-sounding downloaded live audio I have ever heard? Fabluous stuff -- levels are well managed and normalized, and of course edifying.

Nice work -- hat's off to the little christian hedonistas at dg.org.

Main Entry: le-galism

Pronunciation:\ˈlē-gə-ˌli-zəm\
Function:noun
Date:1928
1 : strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code {the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice}
2 : a legal term or rule

3 (centuri0n's lexicon) : looking for a list of things to do so you can accomplish the minimum and still admire yourself for being in conformity with the objective; the polar opposite of love which pours out all things for the sake of being pleasing to the object of affection. {The legalism of bible study ought to be replaced by a real zeal to know what God has said because God Himself has said it}

You need to read this

HT: JT

Practical application: the Gospel is the solution to Culture.

I admit it

I'm a sucker for elegant home cooking. That blog is in the technorati top 100 for a reason: it's delicious.

So they're going to move the U.N. there when?

I love this story: The U.S. is not the most peaceful nation in the world. Of particular note in that story is the definition of "peace".

Any time these proponents of "peace" want to help a brother out and move the U.N. to New Zealand or Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Austria, Sweden, Japan, Canada, Finland or Slovenia, I am sure we can manage to not let the door knob clatter too loudly as our door slams shut behind them.

Two killers, two victims

One murder gets twice as many national news stories than the other.

I wonder why?

What's Up?

Was reading this today because I am a procrastinator:

The skillful work from what’s basically a three-person cast illustrates how committed Pixar’s creative team remains to the ideals of storytelling and their desire to place a premium on fidelity of character. [Pete] Docter’s film is as far as can be from the movies coming out of DreamWorks Animation, the only other game in town for computer-animated films. The script is funny but never jokey, relevant but never dated. The characters and dialogue reach for and achieve the timelessness typical of Pixar films, and the moments that play broader or act as nods to the adults in the audience are never showy and always completely in line with the story. It’s a testament to Pixar’s focus on quality that even after it was acquired by Disney, becoming a part of the animation giant instead of just partnering with them for distribution, its films were still known as Pixar films. The name has become a brand that stands for legitimate excellence in animated filmmaking, and Up is the latest example. It’s emotional, moving, thrilling, and uplifting. Coming from Docter and the rest of the Pixar team, it couldn’t have been anything else.

This is not a shill for Pixar or this movie (which I haven't seen yet). I read this, and I heard the echo come back from my blog, "Somehow Pixar is known for something the church ought to be known for," and was inspired to write 3 pages about that. And then I checked my calendar today and had to only post this.

You work out the other 2-1/2 pages yourself.