Wednesday, May 19, 2010

More Christian than Christ

I'm reposting some comments I left over at Justin Taylor's blog.

REPLY
steve hays May 17, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Kevin Boling May 17, 2010 at 4:56 pm

“I think this is horrible. The last thing that we need in the church today is for professing Christians to embrace beer and the companies that produce it. Doing right by your employees while destroying people’s lives via the product you produce and promote is not a virtue the church should be looking to emulate.”

If you think that’s horrible, it gets even worse: John 2:1-11. The last thing we need in church today is a Messiah like that.

REPLY
steve hays May 17, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Kevin,

The problem is when you and others presume to be more Christian than Christ.

REPLY
steve hays May 17, 2010 at 7:55 pm
Kevin Boling May 17, 2010 at 7:45 pm

“Did not mean to imply that at all. I just don’t think that text has anything to do with giving the church a license to drink.”

And how do you arrive at that conclusion? Jesus made intoxicants for the wedding guests to drink.

Clearly, then, he didn’t regard think it was intrinsically evil or even imprudent to produce and consume alcoholic beverages. Once again, why do you think you know better than Jesus?

Oh, and this isn’t without precedent. According to Ps 104:15, God gave “wine to gladden the heart of man.” So who are you to forbid what God permits? Cf. 1 Tim 4:3.

REPLY
steve hays May 18, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Haven’t there always been “weaker brethren”? Weren’t there weaker brethren in OT times? Yet Yahweh doesn’t advocate teetatolism. Weren’t there weaker brethren at the time Jesus changed the water into wine? Yet that didn’t stop Jesus.

What about communion wine? Wine was used at the Last Supper. Wine was used in NT churches to celebrate the Eucharist. Weren’t there weaker brethren in some of those churches?

This is a red herring.

REPLY
steve hays May 18, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Another meme I see making the rounds of the combox goes something like this:

Christians who support drinking in moderation grew up in repressive, legalistic, fundy churches. Having now seen the light, they overreact by “flaunting” their “new-found” freedom.

No doubt there are some individuals who fit this profile. However, it’s clearly an overstatement:

i) Not every Christian who supports drinking in moderation drinks regularly. He may support it merely as a point of principles. We shouldn’t forbid what the Bible permits.

ii) Not every Christian who supports drinking in moderation grew up in repressive, legalistic, fundy churches. Don’t assume that represents a reaction, much less overreaction, to his religious background. Don’t assume that this represents a “new-found” freedom. That’s a very provincial assumption.

Some Christians have been drinking in moderation since they were old enough to drink. This isn’t a “new-found freedom.”

iii) Not every Christian who supports drinking in moderation even grew up in the church.

Indeed, some individuals have gone in the opposite direction. They used to be unbelievers who were hard drinkers or binge drinkers. After they became Christian, they now drink in moderation.

REPLY
steve hays May 18, 2010 at 5:02 pm
I also wonder what presumptive scenarios the weaker-brethren objection has reference to.

For example, if my wife and I have some wine with dinner, how is that harming the weaker brethren? Or if my friends and I have some beer together, how is that harming the weaker brethren?

If we were to consume alcohol in front of an alcoholic or recovering alcoholic, that would be tactless. And, of course, that would be tactless regardless of whether the alcoholic/recovering alcoholic was a believer or unbeliever.

But under what situations is that a realistic objection to the moderate consumption of alcohol?

And even if there were such situations, wouldn’t that justify a case-by-case policy rather than a blanket policy? Don’t Christians need to exercise rational discrimination rather than have a mechanical approach to issues like this, regardless of the specific circumstances?

REPLY
steve hays May 18, 2010 at 6:22 pm
I also don’t see the practical impact of teetotalism. Unless we return to Prohibition, teetotalism is a voluntary behavior. In the nature of the case, teetotalism is limited to teetotalers. It doesn’t inhibit barflies from blowing their play check at the local saloon, since they don’t subscribe to teetotalism. By definition, teetotalers aren’t barflies while barflies aren’t teetotalers. So as long as both behaviors are voluntary, how does teetotalism solve the problem it poses for itself?

REPLY
steve hays May 18, 2010 at 7:54 pm
Jeff Straub:

“Am I a legalist if I forbid pot-smokers and heroin users in my church or does the legality of something rest on the official pronouncement of the civil magistrate? In a society where pot smoking is legalized, would it then become acceptable to be a church member if one uses it recreationally?”

Mood-altering substances range along a continuum of risk-factors. You can’t rationally propound a blanket policy on any and all mood-altering substances.

To take a comparison, hospitals sometimes administer dangerous drugs. Potentially life-threatening medications. But that’s justified if the risk of not treating the patient outweighs the risk of treating him.

“It is a non sequitor to say that because Jesus drank wine (whatever that was in the 1st century), I am free to drink Guinness. Unless you can demonstrate that Jesus drank anything similar to modern, commercially produced alcoholic beverages, you have no argument. Only rhetoric.”

Except that teetotalers play both sides of the fence on this issue. When Scripture refers to alcoholic beverages in a negative context (i.e. inebriation), teetotalers assure us that the word denotes some type of intoxicant–but if the same word is used in a positive context, then it suddenly becomes root beer.

“I can neither point to a Scripture that prohibits slavery nor can you.”

i) To begin with, you equivocate. “Slavery” is a loaded word. Is indentured service “slavery”?

ii) Rev 18:13 (cf. Ezk 27:13) is an example where Scripture condemns chattel slavery. Eschatological judgment, no less.

“Jesus does not condemn alcohol but regulates it.”

Where did Jesus regulate alcohol intake in Jn 2?

“What I have is the tenor of the Holy Writ which I think argues against its use in the end.”

Gene Robinson uses the same logic to justify catamites in the priesthood.

“Would any form of slavery today be acceptable?”

What about indentured service, whereby thieves make financial restitution for property crimes?

“As I have argued elsewhere, the biblical use of alcohol hardly compares to the use of alcohol in today’s world.”

So teetotalers should stop quoting biblical prohibitions against inebriation. OT drunks were getting plastered on root beer.

21 comments:

  1. Steve said:
    ---
    Not every Christian who supports drinking in moderation drinks regularly.
    ---

    That would be me. Although I guess it depends on the definition of "regularly" since I usually have a Sam Adams or Newcastle (really, the only two beer brands I've been able to stand) on my birthday, so I guess that's "regular" :-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Peter,

    I'm still trying to find a beer that tastes good. :)

    Good thoughts as always, Steve. Freedom of conscience in Christ.

    -Kurt K

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have a question for Steve or whoever feels like they know the answer. My Dad is a former alcoholic who has bought into the idea that scripture teaches complete abstinence. An argument he uses to resolve Jesus's creation of wine with complete abstinence goes like this.

    Jesus's wine was not alcoholic. He says that the method they used to measure the quality of wine increased the less time it had to ferment. Since Jesus made it immediately, and since the wine-taster said it was the best wine he'd ever tasted, that therefore meant that Jesus did not create real wine, just grapejuice, and therefore Jesus was not contradicting strict abstinence.

    I was just wondering if anyone had encountered an argument like this, and if so, do they have a response for it?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steve Hays writes:

    Except that teetotalers play both sides of the fence on this issue. When Scripture refers to alcoholic beverages in a negative context (i.e. inebriation), teetotalers assure us that the word denotes some type of intoxicant–but if the same word is used in a positive context, then it suddenly becomes root beer.

    This is an astute observation!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Matt,

    Here's a comment I made elsewhere:

    It's well-known that the wine back then was strong enough. Ceasars used to let wine flow from the fountains so that the people could get drunk and forget about the problems with the government. Drunkeness was a sin and it would seem quite hard to fall into this sin if the mix was as Birch says. The Bible repeatedly claims that wine is good for making the heart merry, and the king is told to give wine to the downtrodden so that they may forget their troubles. Moreover, distillation was unknown in the ancient world and wine frequently had a alcohol content of 15-16%. Wine was mixed with water, but I've never seen the numbers Birch cites. the higest I've seen are the Greeks who had a 3 or 4:1 ratio, but mostly it was 2:1. The main purpose was to be get buzzed and enjoy flowing conversation. This is easy to see considering the dilution ratio yields a content of about 3-5% (same as many beers). We know the alcohol content was pretty high since the wine could be said to be "good." That Birch is unfamiliar with wine is evident, then. I assume he'll drink grape juice on occassion. If so, next time Birch does I have a challenge: dilute your grap juice with 10 parts water and see how "good" it is.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have never heard that interpretation of John 2. Needless to say, it does not comport with reality, or the OT. Such an interpretation would contradict not only Psalm 104, but Isaiah 55 as well, and there are others.

    You have to let Scripture interpret Scripture. Given what the OT has to say and the Kingdom symbolism of bread and wine, we must assume that Jesus is alluding to the same, and that his sign (miracle) has symbolic significance, which in fact it does. Water is tasteless, colorless, and used for washing but you have to keep on washing to stay clean. Wine has color, flavor, healing properties, and "happiness" or celebratory properties. Water is the old covenant, wine is the new. Later on, Jesus compares the new covenant to "new wine". IMO a repudiation of alcohol consumption would require a word from Jesus directly refuting it, in the same way that He declared all foods clean in Mark 7:19.

    In addition, there are passages that directly contradict your father's argument, for instance Luke 5:39, where in a different context, Jesus says that people generally consider old wine to be better than new wine. Also, in Luke 7:33-34, the Pharisees falsely accuse Jesus of being a "drunkard", because he "comes eating and drinking". This accusation would hardly make sense if fermented wine was not in view. So, exegetically, your father's position does not hold water. :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Matt,

    The passage itself answers your father's interpretation. The master of the feast, after sampling the wine offered to him says "Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now."

    If the good wine "drunk freely" puts party goers in a state that the later "poor wine" will be tolerated, then it's clear that the "good wine" is an intoxicant.

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  8. Another valid point to raise is that alcoholic beverages were intended to act as sanitization for the poor quality water that was found in many areas. Ironically enough, Guinness created a beverage to replace the hard liquor (i.e. gin) that many people were drinking in Ireland.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Isn't it amazing how many Christians don't agree with what the Bible says about alcoholic beverages?

    You could be a glutton of the first order, but the fact that you don't drink makes you Elder material?

    I like the Mexican beers; Corona, Tecate, and Dos Equis.

    Stay thirsty my friends!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I just want to say a quick thank you to Paul Manata, Jonah, and all the others who responded to my question. I'm pretty sure that if anyone ever asks me what the Bible has to say about this issue, I'll link to this post, as I think it cuts through much of the fat that is anabaptism (or just plain fundamentalism as the case may be).

    ReplyDelete
  11. Is getting drunk a sin? Yes! (1 Corinthians 6:10)

    Keep in mind that the blood of Christ is "new wine." look it up in the Bible. Because of all the parasites in the water back then it was safer to squeeze grapes for drinks but that is called 'new wine' and do you know what new wine is? Grape juice. (Luke 5:39)

    Jesus turned water into grape juice. Remember the verses about putting new wine into old skins...

    Personally, I try to do all things that glorify God and I cannot see drinking beer as glorifying God.

    Is tobacco a sin? Probably, if you put it before your kids health, it may be. Is hording, if it causes your kids to be unhealthy or unsafe? Sure. If you place it before your own health, and lose a leg like my Father In-Law, it may be. Not being considerit of others can be evil. If you will not give it up for anything or anyone, that you covet it more then God Himself, then sure, it is a sin.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Because of all the parasites in the water back then it was safer to squeeze grapes for drinks but that is called 'new wine' and do you know what new wine is? Grape juice. (Luke 5:39)
    Jesus turned water into grape juice. Remember the verses about putting new wine into old skins...
    --------
    Nice job ignoring all the posts above:

    1) Your exegesis is horribly flawed.

    2) You don't know what you're talking about.

    But none of that matters because you're on a crusade - you came in here simply to ride your hobby horse.

    Pathetic

    ReplyDelete
  13. Wilson,

    On Point 1, bare assertion with nothing to back up your claim.

    On point 2, bare assertion with nothing to back up your claim.

    >>you came in here simply to ride your hobby horse.

    Any evidence for this bare assertion also?

    Wow, you are batting a thousand for illogical comebacks.

    Jesus Juice is non alcoholic. (New wine) I was just agreeing with Matt's Dad.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 1) You don't read very well do you? I said your "arguments" were already answered above. Just typing "mere assertion" may look good to a first year philosophy student, but it cuts no ice with me.

    2) Your arrogance really is astounding; but it is an excellent example of what I said, you actually do not believe what the Bible says about this subject, and, as the post is titled, you are, in your warped mind, "more Christian than Christ."

    3) The fact you came in here so late to the party to say absolutely NOTHING, is testament enough to your having a "hobby horse."

    You are like so many other guys I've had to deal with in over 30 years of ministry; you come in to a church, or church group of some kind, with all kinds of nonsense you learned from some equally ignorant teacher, and decide that you will "enlighten" the others to your "spirituality." Thus, begins church controversy, and, if the leadership is too weak to confront you and discipline you, a church split.

    "Back up my claims"? That's rich coming from someone who has said nothing of any substance that actually engages with the arguments of this post.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Wilson,

    After you smacked me around a bit with your comments I went back and read what I wrote again and I must say that you are absolutely right, touché. I apologize for not making a better case for myself. I was being lazy.

    I was away from Google reader for a few days but I hardly think that two days warrants your comment of "came in here so late to the party" so your bias is showing. You might want to cover that up. :7)

    I should do a post about this now since it is right to get things strait but in a few words though the Bible indeed speaks of new wine and the avoidance of Fermented grapes

    When the Lord spoke about it as favorable in Isaiah 65:8 "Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all." (my emphasis)

    Also a winepress does not create wine AT ALL!!!

    A winepress (referenced throughout the Bible) makes grape juice.

    Fermenting grapes makes the wine and is called many things because of it. Other terms for Fermented wine is referenced as: Wine, Strong drink, Vinegar of wine, Vinegar of strong drink, Liquor of grapes, Dried grapes, The kernels, The husk

    Look what it says in Numbers 6:3-5 "He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.

    All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk. "

    To avoid Fermented grapes "until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy,"

    To be Holy is to separate yourself from fermented grapes!!

    I can go on, but you get the picture. New wine today is what we call grape juice.

    To be a drunkard is a sin and you are anything but a Christian if you are one. (1 Corinthians 6:10)

    Does that mean that whoever drinks a glass of wine is going to hell? Of course not, but if you are an alcoholic and you are tempting yourself with wine that leads to other things then you may be sinning.

    Again, I cannot drink a beer or drink that sweet, sweet, nectar of Chivas Regal to glorify God. I would end up gargling tequila by the end of the night, then I would spend the rest of the night looking for a bag.

    Thank you Jesus for delivering me from my deserved home called hell.

    ReplyDelete
  16. To be a drunkard is a sin and you are anything but a Christian if you are one. (1 Corinthians 6:10)

    Does that mean that whoever drinks a glass of wine is going to hell? Of course not, but if you are an alcoholic and you are tempting yourself with wine that leads to other things then you may be sinning.

    Again, I cannot drink a beer or drink that sweet, sweet, nectar of Chivas Regal to glorify God. I would end up gargling tequila by the end of the night, then I would spend the rest of the night looking for a bag.

    Thank you Jesus for delivering me from my deserved home called hell.
    --------------------
    This will be my final comment on this since I see you're one of those guys who can't admit when he is in error, and humbly move on..

    1) There is no, I repeat no, Evangelical, Conservative, scholarly Christian commentary that holds the view of Isa. 65:8 (or any other of the verses you use for that matter) you hold - not one. You're out on a limb without a trunk.

    2) You continue to totally ignore the fine arguments presented in this post by Steve Hays, Paul Manata, Peter Pike, and others. You present no credible rebuttal to any of them, you just repeat what you believe the Bible should say, not what it actually says.

    3) I understand your fear of a drug that has apparently been your undoing for quite a long time. I have ministered to men, and women, teens, and college students, who really struggle with alcoholism. Once you get hooked on the stuff it is hard to break free. So, I hear you on that.

    However, that does not give you the right to criticize others who have no weakness in that area, and you have no authority to use the Bible like a piece of sheet metal to mold it into whatever you want it to say. That is what angers me about guys like you. I don't care what you want to believe, that is between you and God. But, when you spout off like you are an expert, when you obviously are not (I read your profile), on an issue that is tainted with bias and emotionalism, then you have stepped over the line of healthy dialogue, and responsible exegesis.

    Well, that's it, and I hope you do a little more thinking and study on this subject, for it looks like, from what I have read on your website, that you are really trying to do the Lord's work.

    But, this is an area you have no expertise on, and brother, it shows.

    May God Bless and Keep You -

    ReplyDelete
  17. Wilson,

    Referencing point 1, Argumentum ad populum? Really that is the best you have? A fallacy? You lose.

    Besides you are completely wrong about that. I am sure you are not claiming that NO one on this planet has a view of new wine being grape juice or that drinking is wrong. Are you so bold as to claim such a thing?

    >>You continue to totally ignore the fine arguments presented in this post by Steve Hays, Paul Manata, Peter Pike, and others.

    Dude, Yes I did...ok fine... how about,

    >>Oh, and this isn’t without precedent. According to Ps 104:15, God gave “wine to gladden the heart of man.” So who are you to forbid what God permits?

    As I pointed out earlier *cough, wine as described in the Bible is allowed, we refer it as grape juice in today's terms. Simple hermeneutics.

    Better?

    >>You present no credible rebuttal to any of them, you just repeat what you believe the Bible should say, not what it actually says.

    At least I am saying what I believe, unlike you. Besides, is that not what you are doing also? You give no explanation or counter, in YOUR opinion, of what I'm actually saying and just insert gripes and complaints about my style of approach. What a dork. I'm curious, what is credible to you? Whatever you decide? How convenient for you. How about the Bible? Is that credible to you? Do you need a panel or consensus to accept concepts. Let me guess, you consult your wife on what to wear every morning? These are mere bare assertions on your part with zero evidence and avoidance of the points. Really? Is this your "A" game?

    >>I have ministered to men, and women, teens, and college students, who really struggle with alcoholism.

    Wow you sure sound like some smug ass, now don't you. Are you claiming that it was YOU who saved these poor souls from alcoholism. That in fact without your precious "counseling" these wretched souls would be lost for ever? Is that itself Biblical? Before you answer, you might want to review Proverbs 3:5-6, Colossians 2:16, 1 John 2:27.

    >>Once you get hooked on the stuff it is hard to break free. So, I hear you on that.

    Again you are completely wrong. So you really don't believe in the Bible at all, do you? I see now that you don't hold any credibility to the Holy Spirit or Jesus or anyone but you, you pompous schmuck. The Lord delivers you. Christ himself stops you in one moment to rid yourself of ALL addictions. Its not a struggle at all, once you are born again you are delivered from addictions, forever. Why? Because we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us. Alcohol was never, ever a struggle for me. It was fun. Fornication Fridays were a blast to me. I loved to drink and sleep around. Once I read the Bible, from cover to cover, and really figured out how wrong it was to sin I stopped in a day and dedicated myself to God. I enthusiastically gave it all up for Christ. Scotch was my favorite drink of all time. Since becoming a Christian I haven't touched it nor desired it. Praise God (not you).

    >>However, that does not give you the right to criticize others who have no weakness in that area, and you have no authority to use the Bible like a piece of sheet metal to mold it into whatever you want it to say.

    Again bare assertions without any evidence to back up your claim. Show the evidence that I have done this coward.

    >>That is what angers me about guys like you.

    What a bigot! How? Just because you read someone's "profile"? Bias much, projecting much. You don't even know me enough to place me in any category. I certainly do not know you enough to place you in any category. I don't even know if you profess to be a Christian or not. Yet somehow, someway, you know my innermost deepest thoughts completely better then God himself. What a miracle.

    To be cont'd...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Wilson cont'd,

    >> But, when you spout off like you are an expert, when you obviously are not (I read your profile), on an issue that is tainted with bias and emotionalism, then you have stepped over the line of healthy dialogue, and responsible exegesis.

    Notice the zero evidence to back this claim up, yet again? (**to the tune of 'by Mennen' ** [Bare assertions].

    If you do grow a spine please come back and I will discuss this with you. Understand though that I am not here to coddle people, to me that is not love at all. Perfect love is a constant confronter.

    Matthew 22:39, Leviticus 19:17-18 tells us how to treat people so that is what I do. I am not here to strive for popularity. It takes far more love to confront to ignore the situation, besides I believe God holds us accountable to our actions as it states in Ezekiel 3:20. Oops, you did not do that now did you? You don't love me enough to correct me in my perceived error.

    Auf Wiedersehn...chicken.

    May God deliver you from the evil grip that holds you.

    P.S. You still are too prideful to apologize for the unjustified and snarky "came in here so late to the party" comment. You are revealing who you really are to all of us.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "... from what I have read on your website, that you are really trying to do the Lord's work."

    The former was my comment, posted 5/22/2010 6:16 pm
    --------------------
    Not that anybody is probably reading this, since the Triabloguers have moved on, but I want the record to show that I repent of the statement I made above.

    I thought I was conversing with an adult. From your last comments, I see I was talking with a child.

    You need to wash out your mouth and your mind, junior.

    While you're at it, someone needs to clean your diaper, you've made quite a mess there.

    I am sorry, very sorry, I mistook you for a Christian.

    Next time, I'll be a little more careful.

    Adios

    ReplyDelete
  20. Wilson,

    >>Not that anybody is probably reading this, since the Triabloguers have moved on, but I want the record to show that I repent of the statement I made above.

    What is this garbage of "I want the record to show," you putz. Who are you and why have you rejected the Lord? Why do you care who is reading this, other then you and I? Are you attempting to grandstand to feed your ego? How about speaking to me as a human being instead of some holier then though parent?

    Would you like evidence of your ego and your condescending attitude?

    >>"From your last comments, I see I was talking with a child."

    >>"You need to wash out your mouth and your mind, junior. "

    Does belittling someone that you view as "inferior" feel good to you? Have you been a bully your whole life? Oh, and have you been some "big man" to admit, at the very least, that you were wrong? Is that what you call a man or someone being prideful?

    Yes, I am trying to do what the Lord asks of me, but you certainly are not, from my observations. You are just getting petty and angry that I may be right about something that you want to do.

    That reminded me of what the Duke defines as a man "I define manhood simply: men should be tough, fair, and courageous, never petty, never looking for a fight, but never backing down from one, either." — John Wayne

    You have not been a man yet AT ALL. Now either answer my questions to you or run away like the scared little boy that you are acting like.

    Look at Hosea 9:2 and Proverbs 3:10 Do you see the Bible makes a distinction between wine and new wine to let us know the difference between fermented wine and grape juice? Jesus taught that new wine was not put into old bottles because they couldn’t expand with the pressure. (Matthew 9:17) Right? Because the fermentation process, yeast acts on the sugar in the grapes to produce alcohol and carbon dioxide which builds pressure. According to the Bible, new wine is, therefore, not fermented. Also, the Lord' s Supper was grape juice evidenced because when Jesus spoke of the "fruit of the vine" (Matthew 26:29) He was speaking of new wine. He didn't even use the term wine, but fruit. Logic also says that the fermentation of wine is the result of adding yeast, a leavening agent, to the grape juice to make alcohol. Correct? At a supper of unleavened bread, there is no way that the Lord would offer a drink made with yeast. So that is my summation.

    Now, please explain to me where I was confused about Isaiah 65:8, Numbers 6:3-5, Hosea 9:2, Proverbs 3:10, Matthew 9:17, and Matthew 26:29. Please show me some evidence where you believe that I am the only one that has these viewpoints. Please show with Biblical evidence where my "exegesis is horribly flawed." to where I "don't know what [I'm] talking about." Also, like I stated, I feel that you still owe and apology to me about the petty "late to the party" comment.

    If you were right here in front of me, face to face, do you know what I would do to you? Do you really want to know? I would wash your feet.

    Now man up, dude.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "You could be a glutton of the first order, but the fact that you don't drink makes you Elder material?"

    Exactly. It was only until recently that a pastor of the church I used to attend agreed that consuming alcoholic beverages was permissible, and that's a first for that church. Alcohol consumption of any kind is frequently decried from the pulpit, but over-eating is almost never even mentioned. Overweight people are never prohibited to preach, but if you ever start drinking, my money says you'd never even get close to the pulpit.

    ReplyDelete