I wrote this very early this morning, but as debate was ongoing in the comment section of my last post, I saved it for later today. Here it is:
I think that Sonya, in the comment section of my last post, hit the nail on the head. She said, “Maybe this issue (the alcohol resolution/debate) is being kept alive and on the front burner to discredit those who advocated change in Greensboro. If the ‘establishment’ can build enough straw men and make the bloggers look like a bunch of drunks, maybe they hope it will change things in San Antonio.”
*Obligatory mention that I abstain from Alcohol*
In the debate on the resolution concerning alcohol, several of my blogging compatriots stood opposed the adoption of the resolution. This is now being spun that “we” were promoting alcohol use and wanted the SBC to do the same. I put the word “we” in quotation marks because I never stepped to the mic during the debate.
Dr. Welch himself said precisely that in this quote from SBC Life: “several Southern Baptist pastors actually came to a microphone and publicly promoted the drinking of alcoholic beverages and wanted the SBC to do the same! Actually, I never thought I would see that take place, and it is not only a surprise but an outrage!”
The truth is that no such thing ever happened.
But I critiqued that article already. Let me give you a few other examples of how this issue is being kept alive. (Please note that this is not an exhaustive list as that would be impossible. New misrepresentations are birthed daily.)
Another blogger forwarded me some quotes from the Mississippi state Baptist Paper, the Baptist Record. I offer these with the request that I wish you to note the hostility and condescension with which these opinions are given.
The Baptist Record
Journal of the Mississippi Baptist Convention
from August 3, 2006 edition
This is an excerpt from an editorial:
Alcohol and Our Witness
William H. Perkins Jr, Editor
“Yet there are Baptists among us who still believe that the use of alcohol is permissible and has no effect on our witness when used in moderation. During a ridiculously-long debate on a resolution reaffirming our historical opposition to the use of alcohol at the Southern Baptist Convention a few weeks ago in Greensboro, NC, Benjamin Cole, pastor of Parkview Church in Arlington, Texas, said the convention was in danger of ‘misstepping’ if it adopted ‘a position that is contrary to what the Bible teaches in the flexibility of the scriptural admonitions as they relate to the consumption of alcoholic beverages.’ Tom Ascol, pastor of Grace Church in Cape Coral, Fla., argued, ‘Christ turned water into wine.’
‘What an embarrassment of perversity and logic.’”
======================================================
A letter to the editor in the same issue:
Stand on Word
“Editor:
As reported in The Baptist Record on June 22, Pastor Benjamin Cole from Parkview Church in Texas and Pastor Tom Ascol from Grove Church in Florida spoke to the messengers at the Southern Baptist Convention about making our scriptural and traditional position on alcohol more flexible. What degree of flexibility that had in mind is unknown.
Thankfully, four-fifths of the messengers voted to stand firmly opposed to the manufacture, sale, and use of alcohol. Further light was shed on the gravity of this issue as the messengers also saw fit to prohibit any user of alcohol from serving on any board or agency. I applaud this action, although I see difficulties in enforcing it. (It was an amendment to the resolution, not a prohibition, and therefore is absolutely unenforceable outside of the conscience of those serving on the committees that appoint such leaders – art)
Some will fall by the wayside in their search for more liberal and flexible congregations. We must stand resolute and immovable in our beliefs based on the Holy and inspired Word of God.
Haskel Stringer
Bay Springs”
Please note that the appeal in the letter from Haskel Stringer is one that we should stand together on God’s Word. Then note further this article by Jim Richards, Executive Director of the Southern Baptists of Texas, Can you be a biblical inerrantist and oppose the use of alcohol as a beverage?
Yet in this article, Richards makes this statement in defining the alcohol referenced in Scripture:
Without too much appeal to history or extra-biblical material, I would point out that evidence exists that shows the ancients used a very different beverage than today’s wine coolers. Several techniques were practiced to prevent or delay the fermentation process. Storage in a cool place extended the life of grape juice. This could have been done in caves and wells. Boiling prevented the fermentation of grape juice.
Wine was diluted for consumption. Scholars say that it varied from 1 part wine/4 parts water, to 1 part wine/20 parts water. The latter was more water purification than cutting the strength of the alcohol.
Word studies in the original language point to the possibility of generic usage of the words translated “wine.” There are scholars who say “yayin” and “tirosh” (Hebrew) and “oinos” (Greek) can mean non-fermented, non-alcoholic drink (Isaiah 16:10, Joel 1:10). Tirosh in some English versions is translated “grapes” (Micah 6:15). In the same verse Yayin is translated “wine.”
This is the standard argument and bears little substantive difference than Paige Patterson’s “First Person” article in the Baptist Press.
How can a claim on the inerrancy of the Word of God and the subsequent “indisputable” conclusion that the Word is against any form of alcohol consumption be based on such disputable speculation? Why are we saying more about what scholars speculate than about what Scripture plainly says? Because Scripture does not plainly say what they want it to say. The fact is that these people are saying that their INTERPRETATIONS OF SCRIPTURE are inerrant and therefore authoritative.
Understand this: This is NOT the Battle for the Bible. They are using old tactics and wording to position us as being other than inerrantists, but they struggle when they have to explain away Scripture while we simply point to what it obviously says. This is simple hermeneutics, folks.
By positioning us and themselves in this way, they give us the high ground on the subject of Inerrancy.
The truth is, and it boggles my mind, that we have taken a stand that is to the RIGHT of the architects of the resurgence on the Inerrancy of Scripture. They have eisegeted the Word (read their presuppositions into the text) and called it authoritative. It is not.
I was told today, by an old footsoldier of the resurgence, that this year’s Presidential election was an anomaly. Elections are typically won early in the year and well decided before we get into the convention center. He said that the Inner Circle was absolutely confident that their influence would create a win for their candidate. Period. They were completely shocked to find the opposite was true.
He interpreted the perpetuation of this issue as an attempt to circle the wagons and get things settled before San Antonio – early in the year. Maybe Dr. Page was right when he wondered if people were conspiring to contest his second term as president next year.
Their worst problem is that they are using the playbook designed for a conflict with those who are not in agreement with them concerning Biblical Authority. That is not meant to say that there are no believers in Biblical Authority who were run out of the SBC during the resurgence. We all know that there were those caught up in politics and beaten up with the “Inerrancy” stick when politics was really the only issue. As I said before, they are on unstable ground in that argument this time.
What they do have going for them is best illustrated in the letter to the editor quoted above and written by Haskel Stringer. Many Southern Baptists believe that this issue is cut and dry in Scripture, and their appeal to that misunderstanding glosses over the truth of the argument. It may not be right, but in our convention, it’s popular, so…
It is the same as making Premillenial Dispensationalism a test of Inerrancy. All the emotion and a lot of the assumptions are there. Why not? Most of them are not dispensationalists.
We have to make this about what it is REALLY about: Honest interpretation of Scripture, the willingness to disagree on third tier issues that face legitimate questions among conservative scholars and the use of this issue as a political tool rather than an honest debate.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Kevin Bussey
on Aug 8th, 2006
@ 3:45 pm:
Art,
Great insight as usual. I think the problem is tradition vs. the word of God. Tradition says Baptist don’t drink alcohol hence it becomes “Law.”
I don’t drink so I have no dog in this hunt. But to say it something is a sin when it doesn’t say it in the Bible is confusing even to those who are mature in their faith.
Kevin
on Aug 8th, 2006
@ 4:48 pm:
Art,
Good word the problem is that most Baptist have an “I must take a side syndrom”. That is not what this is about. Tradition sometimes dictates what we believe even if we do not want it to be. Example, for years the #1 battle in the church is Music “piano-vs. -Guitars, drums and other instruments”. We think the piano is a Godly instrument but just 100 years earlier it was a bar instrument. The Church is famous for tradition.
By the way I don’t drink at all but I can’t say the bible says don’t drink I also can’t find in scripture were it says do not gamble but I made a choice to not gamble. Is that the next thing for the SBC no gamblers allowed?
In Him
Kevin Lancaster
Clint
on Aug 8th, 2006
@ 5:11 pm:
This post has been removed by the author.
Clint
on Aug 8th, 2006
@ 5:12 pm:
Kevin, it’s always easier to condemn the actions of others; especially when you act differently.
I think Jesus said something about picking out sawdust.
The real shame is that the SBC becomes less and less relevant to the culture it exists within every time it defines itself with a “do not”.
Ask anyone on the street and they will likely tell you that their knowledge of the Southern Baptist extends as far as “don’t drink, don’t dance”.
Alan Cross
on Aug 8th, 2006
@ 5:53 pm:
The inerrant Bible says not to bear false witness against your neighbor (commandment #9, Exodus 20:16). Bobby Welch did that in his letter and so are all the other men who are jumping on this bandwagon. What they fail to realize is that we DO NOT want power in the SBC. We are just here to get us to go the right direction. I don’t mean to advocate my blog here, but I wrote a long post about this on my blog and what is going on is really bothering me. You can check it out at
downshoredrift.com
By the way, Sonya is absolutely right. This is a strategy to keep this issue before folks until next year. Thanks for pointing it out for what it really is.
Eric Thomas
on Aug 8th, 2006
@ 8:12 pm:
Art,
I have read your blog with interest (I’m the Norfolk / VA Beach hit that comes up if you look at those things). I don’t post often, and when I do it is not designed as a “drive-by.” Sometimes I might have something to add to the discussion. This is one of those times when I just couldn’t help myself, although I tried :)
Although you may have some correct assumptions, the vision of a conspiracy by “establishment” is not quite correct, IMHO. [I contend that the monolithic vision of an SBC establishment that you have often proposed misses much of the reality of the SBC situation, but that's another topic]. There are two main reasons that I believe you have missed the mark on this particular conspiracy theory.
1) The portrait of William Perkins as a tool of a monolithic SBC “establishment” to disenfranchise others is off-base. A) Mississippi Baptists (and the MS state paper) remain firmly fixed in the “old-line” state Baptist building politics of Herschell Hobbs (see process for writing 1963 BFM). They are not in “lock-step” with what you have defined as the monolithic establishment. B) William Perkins wrote an editorial in favor of CP and thus in favor of Dr. Page, demonstrating something different than what I see in your assertion. Perkins I believe expressed conclusions about the alcohol resolution based upon his beliefs, and based upon a common conclusion among many in Mississippi, as represented by Stringer’s letter to the editor. Their conclusions are not designed to defame the position of bloggers for national political gain. They are expressions of a sentiment that is very much a part of Baptist life in Mississippi (and Florida, perhaps); that is, alcohol = sin. I would suggest that this is not “conspiracy,” but rather a group of Baptists expressing their position on the matter. I sincerely doubt that Mr. Stringer has any interest whatsoever in what a group of bloggers has to say. I have family on my wife’s side in Bay Springs, MS; bloggers are, by and large, an unknown race there :)
2) Although this may be a conspiracy against bloggers, I would ask, “To what end?” Certainly not to oust Dr. Frank Page in San Antonio. Remember, he served on the resolutions committee that drafted the subject of this debate. If it is a conspiracy designed to discredit bloggers, then the conspiracy must have other goals.
What in your opinion would those goals be?
I believe that any “backlash” on this particular issue comes from many of the same people who voted for Dr. Page. Acknowledging the guilt of overgeneralization, I would classify many of these folks as anti-megachurch, pro-CP, anti-elders, pro-southern gospel, anti-chorus, pro-1950′s Southern Baptists. And some of these have toed the party line of SBC politics since 1979 and gained much in Greensboro.
Just some food (not brew) for thought on this Tuesday night. I look forward to reading more in the days to come.
In His grace,
Eric
tim rogers
on Aug 9th, 2006
@ 11:20 am:
Brother Art,
I know that you and I fervently disagree over the alcohol issue. However when I wrong someone I do what I can to correct the situation.
I believe you will find my latest post of interest to you. I do not mean to question your motives–Please forgive me.
Blessings,
Tim
art rogers
on Aug 9th, 2006
@ 11:54 am:
Eric,
If you thought I was implying connectional thinking between Bobby Welch and the Mississippi state paper, I apologize. Bobby Welch was the hand picked candidate from the Inner Circle two years ago and is connected. I think his frustration is showing.
The Mississippi folk represent the traditional perspective. I don’t think they were told what to write. I don’t think anyone told Bobby what to write or even asked him to take up the issue. I believe his motives are his own.
Like many, though, we think like those who surround us. That is what I think you are seeing. I never said “monolithic” anything – I don’t think that exists. If I led anyone to believe otherwise, I apologize.
Tim,
You and I do not disagree on the alcohol issue. You keep saying that, but it is not true. We both abstain.
We disagree on the sufficiency of Scripture, to some degree. Mostly, though, that plays out in our true disagreement as to whether or not this issue is a test of fellowship.
You and I, though agreeing on the issue, do not agree as to whether or not it is a true test of fellowship. You, at times, seem to believe that it is such a test so strongly that you are cross with me for being willing to accept those who disagree with us on this issue.
I stand by what I said about Bobby’s article. It was inaccurate and appeared to be mean spirited.
Perhaps he really misunderstood what was being said. I believe that was not the case, though I can not explain further why I believe that.
Eric Thomas
on Aug 9th, 2006
@ 1:58 pm:
Art,
Thank you for the response. I’m sorry that I have misunderstood you. I got the impression that you believe that there is a “monolithic” political entity through your regular use of “inner circle.” It appeared to me that you presented a group (inner circle) as a unified whole calling the shots and wielding political power and influence in the SBC. In my experience, there is no singularly unified group that would fit that depiction, but that’s another discussion :)
I believe, if I read correctly, that one of your contentions in this post is that the alcohol issue is being kept alive for the purpose of a political tool.
My question is how is this going to be used as a political tool and against whom. Is it against our president, Dr. Page? Not likely, since he helped draft the resolution.
Is it against bloggers? Perhaps, but to what purpose for political gain? And what would that have to do with next year’s convention, since the primary political focus centers on the presidential election? And this issue is unlikely to stick to the current president.
I truly do not believe that this issue is being kept alive due to a conspiratorial desire of the “inner circle” to use it for political gain. I do believe that this issue runs deeply through the moral fiber of most Southern Baptists, and many (most?) of them believe alcohol = sin. In their minds, for anyone to speak against the alcohol resolution was to speak for alcohol, as highlighted by Mr. Stringer and perhaps Dr. Welch.
I suppose that I am questioning whether Sonya in the comment section indeed did “hit the nail on the head.” I don’t see how making “bloggers look like a bunch of drunks” carries the political advantage stated and implied. If you believe it does, then I would be interested in your perspective on what that advantage may be.
Thanks for allowing me to enter this discussion.
Eric
BSC
on Aug 9th, 2006
@ 2:10 pm:
Art:
Just FYI. John Sullivan of Florida announced almost immedately after the 2003 SBC in Phoenix that he would be nominating Bobby Welch for SBC President the following year in Indianapolis. John Sullivan has never been inextricably identified with an “inner circle,” though I think Patterson & Co. realized the impossibility of running another candidate successfully. It is interesting to note that Bobby Welch was elected SBC President with fewer votes than any candidate in the history of the conservative resurgence.
BSC
Light Horse
on Aug 9th, 2006
@ 2:16 pm:
Pastor Rogers,
I have a few small observations.
1. The sufficiency of the Bible is a good discussion to have.
2. Beverage alcohol is not a winning issue among Southern Baptists.
3. Virtually none of the bloggers now in the position of the whipping boy is a drinker. So a lot of people with voices that need to be heard are taking a beating for something they don’t do or really believe in doing.
4. Using beverage alcohol to illustrate the sufficiency of the Bible is a nuanced argument. The SBC doesn’t seem like the best place for nuance. This is sad and I’d love to be shown wrong here, but I don’t think I am.
5. Perhaps it was ill-advised to argue that beverage alcohol is OK on the floor of Greensboro? Maybe it would have been better to have picked the fight more wisely. For example, the Bible doesn’t seem to say anything about how you should pray when in your prayer closet, ie–praying in tongues in private if you want to. Maybe the bloggers would be in a much stronger political position defending a man’s right to pray in the way that seems best to him?
6. Beverage alcohol is a losing issue and gives too strong a sound bite to your opponents. Would it kill anyone to accept defeat, apologize, recant and make the same point on an issue that people can really get behind? It’s the point about the sufficiency of the Bible that matters, not the illustration of beverage alcohol isn’t it?
I appreciate what you’re doing and pray for to as you are building strong friendships with your people in Tulsa.
Tim Sweatman
on Aug 9th, 2006
@ 3:18 pm:
Light Horse,
Overall, your analysis accurately reflects the reality of the situation. A few points in response to your observations:
1. We did not bring up the subject of alcohol on the floor in Greensboro. The Resolutions Committee raised the issue by introducing the resolution. I believe that those who spoke against the resolution did so because they felt that a commitment to the sufficiency of Scripture demanded that they take a stand. They did not seek the issue, but they would not dodge it either. I’m sure they knew they would be flamed for their stand.
2. I would have loved to have had a discussion about prayer language on the floor of the convention, but there was no way to really raise the issue.
3. I agree that most people in the SBC struggle with nuanced arguments and issues. However, any discussion over the sufficiency of Scripture must of necessity be focused around nuanced subjects. It it were black and white, there would be nothing to discuss.
4. Again, no one who spoke against the resolution argued that beverage alcohol is OK. They argued that the Bible does not require abstinence from beverage alcohol, so we should not require abstinence.
5. I agree that from a PR standpoint this is a losing issue. However, if we believe that the Bible is being misused we have an obligation to stand against that, even if it is unpopular to do so. How can we claim to be standing up for the sufficiency of Scripture if we give a pass on one of the most prominent issues where sufficiency is in effect being denied?
art rogers
on Aug 9th, 2006
@ 3:27 pm:
Eric,
I think it is about bloggers who are perceived as “the enemy.” They also see Page as “our candidate.” Discrediting us would diminish the expected critique of any future opposition candidate. All of this is from their perspective and is my perception of the same.
If we are unable to draw out, due to lost credibility, potential flaws of their “new” candidate, they might be successful. I think they perceive us as having “killed” Floyd with questions about CP giving. Similar stuff with Sutton.
That’s just speculation, though. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Ben,
Thanks for the clarification. That was when I still was ignoring the SBC, so the details are not at the front of my mind. My apologies to any offended.
It still doesn’t change that he was the de facto candidate for the Inner Circle, since they tacitly endorsed him by not running anyone against him.
Light Horse,
I agree with most everything you say, but reply to numbers 5 & 6.
5. We did not choose the subject around which to stand on the sufficiency of Scripture. The subject arose and there was a response. Letting it go, further allows the SBC to sink into a sub-culture, far removed from impacting the world.
6. Since the subject is NOT alcohol, but is sufficiency/inerrancy, there is no way in this world that there can be recantations or apologies.
Mel Montgomery
on Feb 22nd, 2007
@ 1:03 am:
Hello Brethren,
I see from the dates of these comments, that I am grossly behind the heat of this disccussion. I find your comments interesting. Since this is a non-Charismatic topic, I would like to add a couple of thoughts on the alcohol issue. Since I don’t drink alcohol, and I’m not a Southern Baptist, I don’t have a dog in this fight, and maybe I can offer some thinking outside the box.
As I’ve read the qualifications of a Bishop from I Timothy, I’ve always felt that the Assemblies of God, and the Southern Baptists miss the point [gasp!] of what Paul was saying. The qualifications for a pastor are: “blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; patient, not a brawler, not covetous, one that rules well his own house, not a novice, must have a good report…” I Tim. 3:2-7.
It has always amazed me how most denominations will take two of these sixteen requirements, major entirely on those two, and ignore the other fourteen. A pastor can be break everyone of the other 14 requirements, and be a pastor in good standing as long as he doesn’t break the wife and wine ones. That seems a bit myopic.
I think myopia has caused us to miss the big picture.
I don’t believe Paul is listing here the qualifications for a pastor. I think he is describing the characteristics of a pastor. There is a huge difference.
A pastor is called to oversee the spiritual lives of others. God expects His children to actually grow and develop. The problem is, that left to their own, they will grow only in the areas that they find easy or appealing. A pastor is to oversee that growth, and see that along with growing in the areas they find appealing and easy, that they also grow and develop in character, integrity, diligence, and other areas that are far more challenging.
I compare it to the growth of trees in Western Kansas. Out by Dodge City and Garden City, the wind comes blasting in from the foothills of the Rockies miles away in Colorado. The wind blows unceasingly out there, and always in the same direction. Trees growing up from saplings in that area are under the constant onslaught of wind, always coming from the same direction. So, they bend under the wind, and over the years end up growing up at an angle, if they are not staked up when they are young. Left to themselves, they grow larger, bent in the same direction. Then when a strong wind, a straight wind, or a tornado comes along, one big blast topples the trees over, because they are already leaning anyway.
The Bible compares people to trees. And left to their own, Christians will grow up under the influence of the winds of the world, grow at an angle, and then when the storms of life hit, they will topple over because they grew up at an angle. They will grow and shoot out branches all on one side, if left alone. They will develop in sound doctrine, or in helping others, or in memorizing scripture, or in whatever areas strike their fancy. And they will be lopsided.
A pastor is like a gardner, or a tree surgeon. He comes along, staking young Christian saplings to a pole, representing sound doctrine, so that they will grow up straight and balanced. On some of the trees that are already growing, he will see they have too many branches on one side, and he’ll come along and prune some of them back, and encourage growth on the other side of the tree. In forcing balanced growth, he prepares them to survive the storms of life, and not be uprooted in a time of testing, and so that their faith will see them through, and they won’t be uprooted by something the Devil, the flesh, or the world throws at them.
With this analogy in mind, how can a pastor produce balanced growth in others, if he is not balanced himself? True pastors–not evangelists trying to pass themselves off as pastors–will be the most solid, balanced, unshakeable people you will ever meet. Paul describes this kind of pastoral characteristic to Timothy so that Timothy can recognize a pastor when he sees one, and set that one in the office of a Bishop.
Let’s look at only two or three of the characteristics. “Husband of one wife.” No, I don’t believe that means that he must never have been divorced and remarried. Such an interpretation violates other principles of God’s Word. What about a Christian man who is called to be a pastor, and wants to study and prepare for that office, but his Christian wife says, “Absolutely not! I will not be married to a preacher. If you send away for application papers to attend a seminary, send away for divorce papers too!” He either obeys God, and loses his wife. Or he keeps his wife and disobeys the call of God. If he obeys God, loses his wife, then do we claim he is unfit for ministry because he valued obedience to God over the covenant of marriage? Surely not.
If a Christian man pastors for a number of years, and his Christian wife tires of the toll that ministry has taken on their family, and leaves, does that make him unfit to pastor?
If a Christian man pastors, and does everything he can to hold his marriage together, but the wife just throws in the towel, and they divorce, and he goes before God and repents, and asks God’s forgiveness, does that mean that God forgives and cleanses every sin EXCEPT divorce? Is he no longer fit to pastor?
Could it be that Paul was trying to draw a larger picture for us, and we’ve missed it by focusing myopically on one single qualification?
What is a characteristic of a pastor, descirbed as “husband of one wife?” A pastor will know how to hold a marriage together. A pastor will be solid and stable in personal relationships. He will know how to give his word and keep it. You will see long-term, stable relationships in his life. If a man has been married and divorced, and married and divorced, and married and divorced, then you are looking at a man who is not a pastor. He does not exhibit the characteristics of a pastor.
On the issue of alcohol. The argument that this referred to unfermented grape juice…oh please! Noah didn’t get drunk on unfermented grape juice! Neither did Lot! Let’s get real! Wine is, well, WINE. The Bible does not forbid wine. It just says a pastor must not be given to much of it. And I believe there is a much larger lesson to be understood by here.
Wine is intoxicating. “Wine is a mocker and strong drink is raging, and he that is DECEIVED thereby is not wise.” Wine, or anything else that has an intoxicating effect, has the ability to DECEIVE you. Wine is intoxicating. Sex is intoxicating. Power is intoxicating. The glory of men is intoxicating. To many people, food is intoxicating. Many things in life are intoxicating. These things can not be avoided. We have to deal with them. A pastor will understand the intoxicating things of life, and will understand that they are dangerous, and can be safely handled only in the way that God instructs. Sex is intoxicating, and sex will deceive you–so exercise it as God intended, which is, only within marriage. The attention of men is intoxicating, so accept it only in moderation, and give all the Glory for all success to God. Power is intoxicating, and the love of power will deceive you–so create a way in which you are held accountable by others. Wine is intoxicating, so if wine is a part of your culture, partake of it only in moderation, and within limits.
When you take a close look at the 16 requirements of a pastor, you see that he must be able to enjoy the good things of life, deal with the common issues of life, and yet remain balanced, keep things in perspective, come under the power and control of none of it, and stay sound in his teaching, continue pressing towards the mark of the prize of the high calling in Christ Jesus, and instruct others how to do the same.
While you bretheren are gagging and gagging on the issue of alcohol, consider what Paul DOES NOT list as requirements for a pastor:
Paul had an advanced theological education for his day, but he does not list a theological education as a requirement for a pastor. (Hello Dallas Theological Seminary!) :)
He was celibate, but does not list celibacy as a requirement. (Hello, Catholics!)
He was a great preacher, but does not list preaching ability as a requirement. He lists instead, teaching.
He was gifted with miracles and healings, but does not list them as a requirment. (Hello, Charismatics!)
Neither does he list evangelism as a requirment for pastoral ministry. Yes, he tells Timothy to do the work of an evangelist, but he does not say, “Timothy look for a soul-winner to serve as a pastor.” (Hello, again Southern Baptists!)
So, what do we look for in a Pastor? A theologically-educated, soul-winning, non-drinking, husband of one wife, rock-em sock-em preaching machine. But it is perfectly alright with us if he is: blameable, slothful, asleep at the wheel, behaves badly, is inhospitable, is borderline violent, greedy, contentious, covetous, whose house is a riot zone, is spiritually immature, and has the most rotten reputation in town.”
Could it be that we can’t see the forest because there are too many trees in the way?
I make this observation and commentary in all sincerity.
I’ve yet to see a pastor lose his pulpit for being inhospitible, or for being impatient. All these other requirements are largely ignored, as far as I can observe. But I’ve seen far too many good men of God who have lost their pulpit because inspite of trying everything in the world, their marriage fell apart through no fault of their own. Then on top of losing the marriage they valued so highly, and going through the crushing ordeal of a divorce, the very organization in which they should have been able to find solace and help, responded only by cruelly jerking the rug out from under them by revoking their ordination papers, and declaring them no longer fit to minister, while turning a blind eye to others whom they knew full well were breaking most if not all of the other requirements for a pastor, but didn’t break the one about wives and wine.
Brethren I agree that we must have ministerial standards. But I would argue also, that they should be consistently applied. Let’s give nearly equal weight to ALL of the requirments, and not just focus on two and ignore the other fourteen.
Just my opinion.
Mel