Alcohol: Abstinence from Alcohol (Official A/G Position Paper)
I found this yesterday. It's from the American AOG website and was put out this year, according to the copyright on it.
It's counter-cultural, courageous and could be controversial. Well worth a read!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I wasnt present at the 24/7 discussion on alcohol, but i would like to say that that article is a Assemblies of God interpretation of the scriptures, not an all encompassing 'Christian' view, if, say, you asked a baptist, it would be different, if you asked a Catholic the view would be different. Each denomination within Christianity is going to provide a different interpretation of the scriptures with regard to alcohol, and everything else for that matter. Your own belief should lie within yourself, and how YOU choose to view God's Word.
Personally, from a perspective not affiliated with the AOG church, I do not believe that ALL Christians should abstain from alcohol, nor do I believe that I have the right to say who can or cannot drink alcohol.
Thanks...I will probably in the near future post something about this on my blog.
Couldn't agree more Prof Matthias. There are so many different interpretations of this issue - both between denominations and within. Which is why I think it's good to talk about it. Few people think about what their stance will be and why, and end up letting society make their boundaries for them. I think it's really healthy to talk about it.
PS... I guess my question is not is it permissible? I think Paul answers this pretty clearly when he says everything is permissible! My question is - is it beneficial? If not, what motivates us to do it? 1 Cor 6:12 and 1 Cor 10:23...
They are very different questions. More food for thought...
Rorygirl – great question. The OT had very clear guidelines both for the Priests, Leaders and for those who took the Nazarite vow. Check out Prov 20:1, Prov 31:4-5 and Lev 10:9, Num 6:3, Is 28:7 for a few verses. (Chatting to Ps Glen - the Nazarite vow was taken by those whom God had chosen to be deliverers – which is kinda cool!) There is often a higher “standard” for leaders because of the responsibility they carry.
I think these are worth considering as we are all now priests and kings – rather than that position being kept for a few.
Also a question I have niggling away in my mind which I haven’t got a good answer for yet – where is the line that ‘drunk’ begins? It’s a sincere question. I just don’t have an answer yet. And yet it seems an important one.
Whilst I'm not sure I personally agree with the entireity of the article it was very informative and intersting.
Ruth, you have taken the choice of abstinence from alcohol haven't you? Do you feel that you miss out on anything? I'm guessing no.
Super dooper point by Zeb about individuals Christians addressing their own view of drinking.
And RORYGIRL...The Professor is not a kid.:)
Give yourselves a pat on the back everyone who posted! Seriously! I love it when people think about how they will live and why. God gave us an intellect to use and I think it is part of our worship to think through things - love the Lord your God with all your mind.
btw Kathryn, yep I have made a personal decision not to drink. (I made this decision long before I was a pastor. Incidentally, the AOG in Australia highly recommends that all their ministers abstain from alcohol due to the epidemic nature of alcohol abuse in our nation.)
Do I feel like I am missing out? Great question actually. Short answer - yes and no.
Yes in that, from the few occasions I have had wine, I really quite liked it.
No, in that I consider what I gain to be far greater that what I miss out on.
Does that answer that?
PS Linus - it was for Timothy's stomach, not heart.... :-)
While I agree with the principle of the article. And I have recently made the decision to cease my acaholic drinking. (not that I was exactly a drunkard before, but i did enjoy the occasional social drink).
I must point out that Jesus himself did in fact drink wine on several occasions. The last supper being perhaps the most pertinent. I'm in no way suggesting that He got drunk. the very thought is abhorrent.
I would say much more, but I think i'd only be repeating thing that Zeb and Linus have already said.
Ruth, I think that the 'line' for drunk is different from person to person. however I have always thought that the legal limit was a good indication. ie higher than .05 blood-alcahol reading. (approx 3 standard drinks for a man, 2 for a woman) that fails to take into account different tollerances, and sensitivies to alcahol. however I think of it as a good rule of thumb.
As to....
"where is the line that ‘drunk’ begins?"
Good question.
This is an extract from an article I found on the web...
"First, being filled with the Spirit is an issue of control. In Ephesians 5:18 we are commanded, “do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit.” The contrast between drunken living and Spirit living is instructive. A drunk person is dominated by alcohol. We talk about a person like this being “under the influence.” So everything an intoxicated person thinks, decides, talks about, or does is controlled by the alcohol. As Christians, however, we are to be drunk with the Spirit. We are to be dominated by, under the influence of, controlled by God’s Spirit. This means that everything we think about, every decision we make, everything we talk about and each thing we do should be directed by the Spirit.*"
i believe the line starts, far too often in out society, even before any alcohol is consumed.
I think it is about the decision - taken consciously or unconsciously - about what we are going to allow ourselves to be influenced by.
Many people make that choice before they take the first drink. The WANT to be influenced, to be different, to be "relaxed", to be changed, to be "not themselves", to be given over to something not themselves.
When drink, or the want of a drink or its effects, becomes the the thing that influences our behaviour - then, I think, we are "drunk".
Your original post was some time ago, so I'm not sure if anyone is going to find this or not.
First, you mention the copyright date of their article is 2006. I think that's just a feature of an outdated web reference to their continuing copyright of all the things on their web page. If you download the article and open the pdf (instead of reading online), the opening line says that it was approved in 1985.
Second, the only reason I bring the year up is because I got a little excited about the possibility of their writing a new position paper on the topic. A little over two years ago I wrote a critique of their paper that attempted to show none of the passages they cite actually support their position. I sent that to the committee responsible for writing these papers, and was hoping they made some changes with my paper in mind. Unfortunately, they didn't and it's still just their 1985 paper.
If you, or anyone else interested, would like to read my critique, I have a copy of it posted on my website (faithinformed.wordpress.com/research/); it is called "A Call to Abstinence?" I don't argue for moderate usage in the paper, though that is what I believe. Instead I just argue their position against moderate usage is no good.
By the way, I am a licensed minister with the AG that hopes one day the AG won't be so legalistic; especially since one of our bylaws is "We won't allow legalism" (or something of that nature).
Hopefully this thread isn't as dead as some of my 2 year old posts! Good day.
Post a Comment