Why am I always defending somebody? Is it because all of my compatriots shoot their mouths off and are deserving of reprimand? If so, they would not need a defense.
Ben Cole’s response to Danny Akin, concerning the Alcohol Resolution and published in the Dallas Morning News, has elicited a response from Dr. James Merritt. Dr. Merritt is a former President of the SBC and Pastor of Cross Pointe, the Church at Gwinnett Center. I found the response posted at the Arkansas Razorbaptist(s) site.
In the “Comments” section, Ben writes kindly toward Dr. Merritt and says that he will not respond. I called and asked him about it, and he just said he was going to let it go.
Probably wise. Ben has better things to do, and so do I. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to address Dr. Meritt’s article. There are some glaring issues that I have been unable to get past, so I am publishing my thoughts, now several days old.
In order to understand my comments clearly, I will post Dr. Meritt’s words in italics and my comments in bold.
Just a few notes of observation in chronological order:
1. To label anyone who advocates abstinence as “older, narrow fundamentalists” is a gross and misleading caricature. First which of the 5 fundamentals does Ben Cole deny? Second, there were more than a few of the “younger” crowd that voted for the resolution. Third does “diverse” mean liberal? There are “diverse” people who call themselves Christians and even evangelicals that support gay marriage and monogamous homosexuality–is Ben Cole one of them?
Ben Cole never labeled “anyone” nor “everyone” holding the position of abstinence as “older, narrow fundamentalists.” I am an abstinence advocate and a friend to Ben. I also did NOT support the resolution. This is the true meaning of Ben’s use of the word “diverse,” addressed again in the next paragraph. We hold different conclusions but still work together and are comfortable with one another’s convictions. His description was a thumbnail sketch of the debate within the convention. Having been there, I affirm that his description, while not definitive, is accurate in general.
Moreover, Dr. Merritt is about to do a lot of talking about straw men. To insinuate that the word “diverse” means “liberal” or in some way equates Ben with those who do not share the Biblical view of homosexuality – even support “gay rights,” is the worst of straw men. It certainly discounts Dr. Meritt’s insinuation that Ben is muddying the waters and that he is attempting to clarify them.
2. Is alcohol abuse and drunkenness possible without alcohol? Can the “nth” drink which finally causes the line to be crossed to drunkenness and alcoholism be taken if the first drink never is? With the answer obvious, these tragedies then can indeed be traced back to alcohol!
This is a wonderful hedge around the law. It is a thought that I apply to my own life, but when authoritatively applied to the lives of others, it becomes pharisaical. You can read more of my thoughts on this subject in my article, A Hedge Around the Law.
3. No one is condemning all use of alcohol–this is a straw man. Alcohol has its medicinal purposes (just as Paul said to Timothy) and no one is putting taking one drink or moderate drinking in the same category as drunkenness as indeed Akin make plain.
“No one is condemning all use of alcohol.” Not so, Dr. Merritt. In an article released by Baptist Press, Resurgence Architect Dr. Paige Patterson concludes that the use of alcohol by any Christian is tantamount to sin. You can read it for yourself:
FIRST-PERSON: Concerning alcoholic beverages
4. Cole exhibits a gross ignorance of the difference between the wine/strong drink of Bible days and that of today. His entire argument in one sense is irrelevant because it is comparing apples and oranges. It would be as if one would advocate that a car should not travel more than 25 mph because a horse at that speed traveling through the streets of Jerusalem would be dangerous in bible days so the speed limit of today applies accordingly. The alcohol content of wine today would be the equivalent of much strong drink in bible days!
To call Ben Cole grossly ignorant of anything raises my eyebrows. Both of them. Saying such a thing discredits one’s own argument, to say the least. Rather, it is an overstatement of one’s case to say that the Biblical witness of wine vs. strong drink is simple and that Ben has misapplied his argument for slightly fermented grape juice to “strong drink.” Much of this is speculation on the part of scholars as to what was the actual alcoholic content of what people were drinking in that day. There is no “hard evidence,” so to speak. To base his critique of Ben on such speculation is to toe the line of arguments past without surety of their own soundness.
5. Again marriages cannot fail because of alcohol if neither party drinks, no one gets killed by drunk drivers if no one drinks, and children do not have food robbed from their tables if no one drinks. So, alcohol is indeed a destroyer of marriages, menace to families, and a highway murderer. The gun/bullet analogy is laughable. A person with a bullet in a gun knows exactly when he is a menace to others–when he points his gun at an innocent person and fires. No one knows when their line of moderation in drinking is crossed into the danger zone–which is exactly why some people can “hold their liquor” better than others. There is no one “line fits all” standard for moderation which is why the bullet analogy fails. Furthermore there is no harm to a Christian’s witness by having a bullet or a gun in their home–the same cannot be said if Budweiser cans fill the refrigerators and litter the house.
Again, a fine hedge. If we were to be pharisees, this would be one of the first preventive measures adopted. This is just the reason many within our culture reject our witness. We adopt rules and seek to enforce them but when looking for them in the Word, they are absent. They see us as ungrounded, and they are right.
And speaking of pharisees, is there any evidence that THEY were tee-totalers?
6. No one is trying to deny anyone their 21st Amendment rights–again another straw man. On the other hand just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. The Supreme Court has ruled abortion on demand for all intents and purposes legal–is Ben Cole pro-life? Would Ben Cole have fought the abolitionists 150 years ago because slavery was then legal? When it comes to Christian convictions and biblical morality the Constitution is to put it bluntly irrelevant–at least to an older narrow fundamentalist!
Talk about a straw man!!! To imply that Ben Cole is anything other than pro-life is unconscionable. To create such a straw man while denouncing straw men boggles my mind.
Speaking of the argument that Ben has created a straw man – that no one is trying to deny anyone their 21st Amendment rights – I refer Dr. Merritt, and all of you, back to Dr. Patterson’s “First Person” article mentioned earlier. I remind you that he concludes that it is a sin for any Christian to do anything other than abstain from any form of alcohol.
7. Again the statement that “it is not true that the temperate consumption of alcoholic beverages leads to debauchery” simply is not universally true. The chain smoker comes from the one who smoked his first cigarette. The drug addict comes from the one who first tried drugs. It is true that not all temperate consumers of alcohol become alcoholics but this is a totally different statement than Cole makes and no one is saying any thing differently. Furthermore, no one is saying categorically that abstinence is the only acceptable position for Christian believers (as opposed to say a pro-life position which Southern Baptists do believe is the only “acceptable” position for Christian believers). What Akin and others are saying is that the abstinence position is the wisest and most responsible position for a Christian believer where Cole would say a moderation position would be–the question is which case has the strongest biblical backing.
Another effort at pharisiacal law building to prevent law breaking. I might add, at this point, that if you did not read my article, A Hedge Around the Law, you might click on the link above. This action is pervasive and seems good, but it ends in the binding of one’s soul in a web of legalism. Truly evil. If we strive to become outwardly pure, we almost always become inwardly shallow and easily rejected by our culture (and our God) – missing the opportunity to become inwardly intimate with God which produces an outward holiness that even the darkest of lost souls can recognize.
Also, Ben never argues for moderation to be the view of every Christian. As to which case has the strongest Biblical backing, simple hermeneutics would say that the moderation position is more easily documented from the Word. My point, and I believe Ben’s point, is that there is room for diversity in our views on the subject. Again, that word does not mean that I support the homosexual agenda nor am I anything other than pro-life. Just for the record.
8. Concerning alcohol and church leadership, God himself holds Christian leaders to higher standards as evidenced by who was eligible for the priesthood in the Old Testament and the requirements given for pastors and deacons in the New Testament (see also James 3:1). It is neither out of line from a biblical standpoint nor from a practical standpoint for the church to require a higher standard from their leadership in terms of alcohol use or tobacco use for that matter.
God’s Word is clear on the issue of leadership and leaders being held to a higher standard. Dr. Merritt and others, however, do not get to set that standard. It is not more holy to believe like they (we, actually) do because they believe it. The proposition is arrogant at its core, though I am sure Dr. Merritt is not an arrogant man. The notion, however, centers on the idea that “we are right, and therefore we get to decide who is best suited for leadership,” ie, NOT Ben.
9. Cole himself stretches the “flexibility” and “nuances” of the bible to the breaking point. It is glaringly evident that nowhere does he mention the key text in this matter (and other matters of potential gray areas) which is I. Cor. 8. That text is the sine qua non for any discussion on alcohol. Paul’s entire point (which is so plain it cannot be denied or diluted) is the trump card over Christian liberty is Christian love. In other words liberty which is not limited by love becomes license. Paul knew there was nothing inherently wrong with eating meat sacrificed to idols just as Akin and others know that there is nothing inherently wrong with taking a drink of wine with a meal. But then Paul dropped the love bomb on the liberty platform–if steak becomes a stumbling block I will not eat it (v.9)–and according to verse 13 he never did again. Now the key question–is there anyway that having a Budweiser at a ballgame or wine– or a Bloody Mary, rum and coke, gin and tonic for that matter–in a restaurant can be an enhancement to one’s Christian witness? Put another way is there anyway those scenarios can be stepping stones to a weaker brother’s walk with God? Conversely is it more likely those scenarios would harm one’s Christian witness and be stumbling blocks to a weaker brother’s walk with God? To most if not all (except to some young, “diverse” evangelicals) the answer is patently obvious. So, although I have the right to drink, because of Christian love and my desire to avoid any potential stumbling block to other Christians not to mention anything that could damage my witness to unbelievers I will pass– as I have all of my life to no regrets.
1 Cor. 8 is the reason that I don’t personally drink. I agree with the argument and it is probably the one thing with which I would myself respond to moderation advocates in an earnest debate. Nevertheless, Dr. Merritt again creates a straw man out of Ben by suggesting that he is arguing for “Bloody Mary, rum and coke, gin and tonic” drinks all around.
If you want a lesson is nuancing, read Dr. Patterson’s work on the greek word [oinos] in the First Person article. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
The purpose of my writing this article is not to reopen the alcohol/moderation debate. Like Ben, I tire of the discussion – because it is not much of a discussion. Very rarely are we able to find many who will engage in reasoned (as in “come let us reason together”) discussion. Rather, we find that our predispositions, personal histories and raw emotions govern our words – on both sides.
My purpose in writing this article is to remind every single last Southern Baptist leader that their words will be scrutinized and answered on issues concerning the direction of this convention. Though I personally agree with Dr. Merritt’s position, I am not about to allow him, or anyone else, to issue such a missive and have it be the last word from the power structure – a structure that has become far too accustomed to having their word unquestioned.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Kevin Bussey
on Jul 26th, 2006
@ 11:29 am:
I agree.
I’m glad your my friend. I would hate to cross you :)
art rogers
on Jul 26th, 2006
@ 11:51 am:
And yet you posted a picture of me from Seminary – the one that caused my wife to fall on the floor laughing.
Hmm.
Kevin Bussey
on Jul 26th, 2006
@ 12:11 pm:
I forgot about that! oops!
GeneMBridges
on Jul 26th, 2006
@ 3:27 pm:
Frank Turk’s blog is dealing with this right now too.
http://www.centuri0n.blogspot.com/
centuri0n
on Jul 26th, 2006
@ 4:09 pm:
I would like to point out that this is exactly the kind of argument that I am dealing with at my blog right now.
Sheesh.
Paul Burleson
on Jul 26th, 2006
@ 4:32 pm:
Art,
Your words are profoundly simple, articulate, straight forward, and gracious. Can’t ask for better than that.
Paul Burleson
art rogers
on Jul 26th, 2006
@ 5:21 pm:
Paul,
Thank you for your encouragement. I am grateful that you found my words “profoundly … gracious.” They have not always been so, but i am working on it.
tim rogers
on Jul 26th, 2006
@ 9:06 pm:
Brother Art,
You say that you feel compelled to write these words though Ben has said he would not.
Ben said more than that. As a matter of fact he said concernng Dr. Merritts comments to his article; “I don’t think he was accusing.”
There are some areas of your response that I do not think you have given a fair response.
1.) Dr. Merrit did not call Ben a liberal he asked would his argument would he not fit in that category?
2.) You said that Patterson concludes the use of alcohol by any Christian is a sin. There is no place in Patterson’s article that he states this. As a matter of fact, he says; “in the case of superior medication, wine might be justified as medication, but only if taken as a “little wine”.
3.) You then questioned the merits of Merrit’s claim of alcohol content being different today than then. What scholar does not say this. Every scholar that studies the cultures of then will tell you there is a difference.
4.) You finished with a call that Merrit implicitly stated that Ben Cole was pro choice. Merrit never said that, he asked a question that everyone knew the answer of and that is Ben Cole is Pro Life and stands strongly on that position.
Brother, I do not know what has happened since June, but your latest post definitely reveal a short fuse when it comes to those in leadership positions in the SBC. I have never met you, but have grown to appreciate you as a brother in Christ. I do ask that you examine your motives on your posts now.
Tim
martyduren
on Jul 26th, 2006
@ 10:17 pm:
Are you ever going to finish reading those books?
art rogers
on Jul 26th, 2006
@ 10:24 pm:
Tim,
You are questioning my motives? How short can my fuse be if I wait for days before responding to a major statement? Really, I have not even blogged much since June. If you think I am being strong with convention leaders now, go back and read my early posts. I think you will find me much more patient and giving than before. How interesting that you and Paul Burleson see these words so differently.
The implication that I am being reactionary and governed by some mystery incident is less than gracious on your part – not to mention a false implication.
I declared my motives in the last two paragraphs of this article. What you see is what you get.
On the other hand, any person questioning the standard bearers on this issue, even those with whom you agree, receive a hostile response from you. Maybe it is not me who needs to check motives.
Here is the response to your accusations:
1. “Asking” if Ben’s argument fits into the catagory of “liberal” IS an implied accusation. It is hard to fathom how anyone could see it otherwise.
2. Read the last paragraph of Patterson’s article. He asks how it could be anything less than a sin. That is black and white.
3. What I say is that Dr. Merritt speaks as if there were hard evidence and exact measures of comparison but there is only speculation. If you can link to some new evidence that reveals exactitudes, feel free. Otherwise address what I said – that this is an educated guess – not what you say I said – that there is no evidence of any difference.
4. To question whether Ben is pro-life in an article about alcohol is an implicit accusation. How can anyone play semantics with such thing?
I thought I finished with a statement about the leadership of the convention being questioned concerning their leadership.
Alan Cross
on Jul 26th, 2006
@ 11:42 pm:
What disturbs me about the character of debate in the SBC is that some people have learned very well how to destroy the arguments of others without really dealing with them. They use words that characterize their opponent as a complete fool. This has to be close to Jesus’ admonition to not use the word “Raca” when dealing with someone. It is incredible. Dr. Merritt’s approach in countering Ben’s argument is very disappointing. But, I think that the establishment is used to dealing with adversaries this way. You did well to call him on it, Art.
I find it interesting, however, in the event of the loss of the presidency, there has been so much uproar over 10% of the convention delegates voting against the resolution. I think that this was their issue to push back and the opponents of the resolution bit on it. Now, the brand of “liberal” is being bandied about regarding the Baptist Bloggers, which is a complete lie and unfortunate. But, not unexpected.
Perhaps we should all follow Paul’s advice in Romans 14:22 when dealing with Christian liberty and causing a weaker brother to stumble when he says, “So whatever you believe about these thngs keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves.”
I think I’m going to follow Paul’s advice. When anything becomes a gospel matter, I will speak up and oppose it. But, otherwise, I’m going to let people flail at the wind. They just wear themselves out.
jgsy3kids
on Jul 27th, 2006
@ 3:10 am:
Ok, I just have to come back to….other cultures. There are so many cultures that don’t have the total Bible in their language; maybe some books, or maybe just the New Testament.
If we want to protect our people from heresy and false teachings, how can you add to God’s Word regarding anything? Outside sources and scholars tell us that it’s possible wine of Bible days is different than wine of today…many cultures have no access to this information.
The message of the Bible is in the Bible; not outside sources. If this is not the case, then we should not be surprised when false teachings are accepted and heresy is believed.
To tell your people that everything you’re taught should be measured against God’s Word to be sure it’s true, and then to say, “But it’s a sin to drink alcohol….” Have I not just added to God’s Word in this instance? So when the next person comes along (a Mormon) and says, “Oh, you can’t drink tea or cola if you’re a Christian”, then how will this person know if it’s truth or not? He was told that “drinking alcohol was a sin”, but this isn’t written in the Bible, so maybe this new “rule” is true, too. You can apply this extra rule (legalism) to anything else you want to that’s extra biblical.
I think the advice to not argue about the meaning of words is one we should heed. There are too many people dying and going to hell to try and add requirements to God’s Word…
jenni
art rogers
on Jul 27th, 2006
@ 7:14 am:
Alan & Jenni,
Great thoughts.
For people who hold inerrancy as the standard (as do I), they really seem to take their own opinions as authoritive, don’t they?
Again, though, my point in this post was not to rehash or further the alcohol debate, but to return the volley of words in what appeared to me to be an inappropriate, or at least insufficient, personal address in the arena of ideas.
tim rogers
on Jul 27th, 2006
@ 9:28 am:
Brother Art,
You certainly would think Alan and Jenni’s comments were “great thoughts” they agree with you.
If I offended you, Brother, I am sorry. Your past posts about the leaders of the convention were no where close to how you have described them since the convention. You certainly have taken a more agressive stance toward any leadership that is connected to Paige Patterson. The only agency head you have spoken graciously about is Morris Chapman, and Jerry Rankin. Oh, you did speak graciously about our Interim Prez at NAMB, but you questioned the Trustees and their desire to bring change. It may not have been on your blog but on comments elsewhere you certainly took your aim.
All I am saying is that when one has refutted an argument in a public setting and decides he is done, why take up the mantle?
If we truly are about getting on with God’s business, let it rest. We all know you disagree with with the different positions. We all know that Ben, Wade, CB, You, and others that were at Memphis are inerrantist. Let it go!
It has been very well documented that the current leaders take these stabs in their responses. We are not naive or ignorant to their writings and responses. Ben does not need defenders, he does a great job defending himself.
Blessings Brother and I pray for peace.
BSC
on Jul 27th, 2006
@ 9:48 am:
Tim:
I may not need them, but it’s nice to have them every now and then.
I must hasten to say that James Merritt and I have corresponded recently, and there is no loss of fellowship between because of this matter.
Also, be watching my blog later today for some interesting discoveries.
BSC
art rogers
on Jul 27th, 2006
@ 11:40 am:
Tim,
I thought that Alan and Jenni’s thoughts were original and relevant. That is why I counted them as “great.” It is a dig at me to insinuate that I only appreciate those who agree with me. I discuss in this very arena the fact that I disagree with Ben on this very issue and yet we get along fine. You and I happen to agree on this issue but can’t seem to get along at all, now.
I am not offended, but I felt that you were not accurate in your assesment of either my motives or my conclusions. You seemed to be addressing me personally, and not the ideas in the forum. You seem to be doing it again.
Let me again point out that I think you are wrong.
I have only praised a couple of leaders and have targeted Paige? I praised the work of Bobby Welch, the Committee on committees, the Committee on nominations, Alan Blume and the Committee on order of business – Barry McCarty got an entire post in praise of his work. I have praised Frank Page and Wiley Drake – a man with whom I disagree on several things, but not his commitment to ministry or the Lord. I recently said I was pleased with the IMB BOT in general as they made it through their last meeting without imploding.
Meanwhile I have criticized Corbaley, Hatley & Floyd at the IMB; Dorothy Patterson in relation to the pastor’s wives’ luncheon; “the machine” for shopping the “Frank Page is a liberal – here’s the proof in his dissertation” story around; and now Dr. Merritt’s response.
How are these criticisms focused around Paige Patterson? Are your saying you believe him to have organized or be behind all of these issues?
Let me clarify: I think that the IMB folks are acting on their own – they are not taking orders. Dorothy Patterson is a bright woman with a mind of her own and I certainly think the luncheon reflected her, not her husband – my personal issues with it aside. I certainly think that Dr. Merritt is acting on his own – he does not need direction.
As to the issue of shopping the dissertation, I have only said that it was coming, at one point, from within SWBTS. I have not yet laid that act at the feet of any one person, though I know more than I am saying.
No one should read anything in to that last statement, either. I am not affirming or denying ANYONE’s involvement personally. When I have evidence that I can share publicly, then I will let you know. At this point, I am bound to protect my sources because they fear for their careers.
As to why I took up the argument, I have made plain that it was not about Ben as much as it was about “The Powers That Be” going unchallenged when they push on someone – even someone with whom I disagree. They will no longer “take their stabs” without having such stabs rebuffed.
As to inerrancy, the first mention of that word came in response to Jenni, who brought up the topic. I will not, however, let it go. It is the common ground for us as conservatives and without it we can not discuss anything relating to the convention. In this issue, when words like “liberal” are being used, I think that the affirmation of inerrancy is important. Moreover, I think it a stark contrast for me to be defending inerrancy (and sufficiency) while these resurgent leaders do their best to explain away Scripture.
Finally, I will discuss what I deem germaine to the issues at hand. I am sorry if you feel that I am off topic or in some other way have let you down. You are, of course, free not to read.
IN HIS NAME
on Jul 27th, 2006
@ 12:07 pm:
Alan & Jenni,
All I can add to what you have posted in your comments is
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
A Brother in CHRIST
Dorcas
on Jul 27th, 2006
@ 3:56 pm:
Do I need to do a post “In Defense of Art”?
Art-
Thanks for taking a stand when it counts.
CB Scott
on Jul 27th, 2006
@ 4:51 pm:
Art,
I go away for a short time trying to be missional so I can impress my younger friends that I understand the word:-) and I get back and see this. All I can say is : Tim, Tim, Tim!!
tim rogers
on Jul 27th, 2006
@ 5:20 pm:
Brother Art,
I am sorry you feel that I am attacking you personally. It does appear that I probably need to heed your invitation, for the sake of peace.
God Bless
Tim
Dorcas
on Jul 27th, 2006
@ 9:06 pm:
Ben -
As to the interesting discoveries later today … do you promise? :)
johnMark
on Aug 1st, 2006
@ 6:06 am:
I posted this article by Vos at cent’s blog with no replies. I think does apply in this situation with the current alcohol resolution.
It’s Vos on the Seperated Life
http://www.the-highway.com/separated_Vos.html