Jesus would never go in a bar!

[AlexIsAwake]

FMJ, I think I can relate a bit to how you are feeling in being judged by other Christians for going to a bar. I have a very helpful resource I'd like to suggest to you.

A little background: I was raised as an Independent Fundamental Baptist. Like the Duggars, I was taught that drinking alcohol was wrong and therefore, by extension, it was sinful to go into a bar. As I got older, I left that denomination for a non-denominational, evangelical, charismatic type church, and have since finally settled on Presbyterian as being closest to my beliefs. I now consider myself what is called "Calvinist" or "Reformed," and as such, I do not believe the Bible teaches that drinking alcohol is wrong. On the contrary, I would argue that it teaches alcohol is given to us by God, as all things he created, to be enjoyed but not misused.

The book that really brought me around full circle into this belief is by Kenneth Gentry and it's called God Gave Wine: What the Bible Says About Alcohol. Looks like you can pick up a used copy on Amazon for about $12. It's a short book and a quick read, and basically takes all the verses in the Bible that mention alcohol, explains the context, and even gives you the meaning of what was being said in the original Greek/Hebrew words. I found this hugely helpful. If you'd really like to get a good grasp on the subject and be able to defend your actions against self-righteous, judgmental Christians, then I highly recommend this book.

A word of caution about the author though - he is an ultra Conservative Christian (although some would call him liberal given his beliefs on alcohol), and I do not agree with his body of work as a whole. This book however, does nothing but objectively examine Scripture and the conclusions speak only of what the Bible clearly tells us when its directives on alcohol use are understood in context and as a whole.

One specific from the book I will point out here that has really stuck with me is the story of Jesus turning the water into wine at the wedding. The word wine can be shown through looking at the original language NOT to mean unfermented grape juice (as the Duggars say), but actual wine as we know it. Also, back in ancient times, it was impossible for grape juice not to ferment into wine, because they did not have the capabilities to keep it cool enough to avoid the fermentation process. If Jesus created wine, how can we have a problem with it? I read this once, "It is iniquity for us to condemn that which God approves. By so doing, we claim to be more moral than God." Something to think about!

Good luck in your research. I've found it very freeing to no longer be bound by the "alcohol is bad" mandate without understanding why. :-)

[Brainsample]

This makes me think of something I heard Carlton Pearson say, a Pentecostal minister who went emergent/universalist a few years ago.

He went on a trip to the Holy Land after being there many times before, and he prayed on the way over for God to indicate to him somehow about whether Jesus had really literally been at a particular place that is usually touted as such. (Give as much credence to this and the Holy Spirit stuff as you like.) He said he felt nothing, and he was a little disappointed. Shortly before he left there, he'd almost put this prayer out of his mind, thinking that it was probably a silly request. He then saw a bunch of poor, pathetic people somewhere -- a bunch of homeless looking people that were not very desirable, shall we say. And Carlton says that he became overwhelmed and heard in his heart, "I spent a lot of time here."

My eyes tear up every time I think of him saying that. I don't think that most people would have a clue where Jesus would be -- probably all the places that highly religious people don't want to go.

[Guest Anonymous]

Not only would Jesus have gone in the bar, he probably would have taken the mike at karaoke time.

[Brainsample]

I love Ken Gentry, and "God Gave Wine" is a great resource. High five to AlexIsAwake.

Another thought about the avoidance of bars from a different perspective. It's not currently online, but in Don Veinot's article entitled "Bill Gothard's Evangelical Talumud," he explains how these extra rules get made up and turned into legalism. I'll do a reiteration of what I recall from that document.

If you're a Christian, you don't want to sin, and it is a terrible thing. Essentially you are treading on the Blood of Jesus and showing it disrespect if you callously sin willfully or you have a caviler attitude about sin. You should avoid it like you avoid a rattlesnake, and you should be contrite because of your sins. (That shouldn't be confused with self-forgiveness for being human and making mistakes, though we should be readily disposed to repent when we mess up because it hurts us and others when we do.) Granted, if you reject the concept of sin, little of this makes sense.

In order to make sure that you don't sin, people like Bill Gothard make up extra rules and standards to make sure that people don't wander into sin by setting up extra sub-rules around the big sins. So they create legalism. It's an extra guard against sin.

I see the issue of drinking in this same light. The Bible establishes getting drunk as a sin because it is a loss of self-control. The alcohol isn't the problem so much as the desire to escape and drunken behavior is. So religious people have created other rules to keep people away from alcohol, really for the right reasons, but the methods almost defeat the purpose of avoiding sin, because the rules become the new sin in may cases. It's just a different type of and less obvious sin. One person might need those rules for themselves, but another person might find it to be completely unnecessary.

The legalism overrides both person's intimacy with the Holy Spirit and with their own conscience, because they are "relieved of it" by the rule and the law. They should rely upon their conscience which should be informed and led by the Holy Spirit as opposed to following some rule that someone made to protect them from sin -- really from themselves. But the problem is that sin cannot be avoided for anyone. One type of sin just morphs into a different kind of sin, because the real impetus to not sin should come from love for Christ and a desire to do honor God by doing what is right. Following rules just insulate a person from developing that in a deeper way.

[Kaylee]

... The Bible establishes getting drunk as a sin because it is a loss of self-control. The alcohol isn't the problem so much as the desire to escape and drunken behavior is. So religious people have created other rules to keep people away from alcohol, really for the right reasons, but the methods almost defeat the purpose of avoiding sin, because the rules become the new sin in may cases. ...

This is my view of it, also (and I liked the entire post & how you explained it). I don't think drinking itself is a sin. I looked up the original words and all the verses I could find on wine and drinking in the Bible when my former pastor was sort of on a roll and preaching against drinking on a regular basis (funny, he's no longer a pastor now and enjoys a good beer or several). Everything I could see in the Bible and history of the times pointed to drinking being fine, and drunkenness being the sin that was warned about.

One of the things I found out is that Baptists historically weren't against drinking. Bourbon whiskey was even invented by a Baptist pastor. It seems like they joined on, along with many other Protestant denominations, during the "temperance movement" in the 1800s. The southern Baptists didn't official ban drinking until some time in the 1890's. After the failure of Prohibition, most other denominations backed away from the teetotalers and returned to a more moderate position. Most conservative Baptist groups stuck with it, possibly because so many preachers and evangelists had testimonies or favorite sermons centering around reformed drunks, and it seems like the 50s especially brought all sorts of books and theories twisting scripture to try to make it fit that position (ie, the "grape juice" argument).

[jenny_islander]

From what I've read--smatterings only, so grain of salt--the temperance movement originally had a point. Visitors from Europe were shocked at the amount of public drunkenness, drunken violence, abuse and neglect of dependents due to alcoholism, etc., in the U.S., especially (IIRC) in the East. They had wine with meals, but these people went straight from their jobs to the bars and just got hammered every single night. Blue collar and white collar alike. It was something like going down the boozer in the UK these days, except cubed.

The underlying cause, or so I've been told, was grain subsidy. The tradition was to spend an evening drinking, but you had a shot and nursed a pint because that was how far your money would go. Suddenly it was possible to take a bath in booze and people who might never have met an alcoholic in their lives were becoming alcoholics in neighborhoods filled with alcoholics and no apparent way out. And their dependents were suffering. Since most women depended on a man's income to support themselves and their children, the temperance movement was an early feminist issue.

Going from there to the eisegetic contortions needed to make Jesus a teetotaler involved a lot of steps and a collective loss of memory.

[bionicmlle]

Invite him to fellowship with you over a rendition of "Summer Nights."

[doggie]

Tell him "Bless your heart. I'm praying for you". I would worry for one very good reason: he may be interested in courting you and wants to "reform" you in advance.

that's what I am thinking so this is a easy way to know he is not worth the time.

[mirele]

I guess I need to memorize this because my Google history says I've searched on drunkard and winebibber before. But here goes:

33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil.

34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!

35 But wisdom is justified of all her children.

(Luke 7:33-35)

I think that answers the question, no?

[duplessis3]

Jaye Bakker has church in a bar.

I think a simple "oh." with no exposition would suffice. Why would you listen to someone else's brother?

At the UCC we used to attend the silent auction night always featured wine tasting. Got people to bid higher.

[Buzzard]

I guess I need to memorize this because my Google history says I've searched on drunkard and winebibber before. But here goes:

(Luke 7:33-35)

I think that answers the question, no?

I think I need this translated in a non KJV because I dont understand what this says!

[Witsec6]

I think I need this translated in a non KJV because I dont understand what this says!

The Bible is it's Own Dictionary, Buzzard! Just ask the Pissing Preacher!

[Kaylee]

(Luke 7:33-35)

I think I need this translated in a non KJV because I dont understand what this says!

[Brainsample]

Raine, I love your insights on this and on so many other topics!

I would add, that if you're looking for a good Scripture to use concerning eating and drinking, I love Romans 14:17 - "The kingdom of God is not eating or drinking, but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit."

In context, it talks about this greater subject of legalism. In Paul's day, you could buy meat that "pagans" used to sacrifice to idols but then did not want to eat. It was perfectly good meat but had been used in religious ceremonies and could be purchased at low cost. Some Christians would not touch this meat, considering it tainted, but other Christians believed that in the authority of Jesus Christ, the pagan rituals were irrelevant. A prayer of blessing in faith would surely make the meat good to eat anyway. So some Christians preached that it was sinful for any Christian to have anything to do with meat that had been sacrificed to idols. Paul established that it didn't.

He said that for some, it was a problem, and if their consciences bothered them, they surely should not eat it. But for those whom the Holy Spirit by way of their own conscience gave them liberty to eat that meat, Paul said that they should by all means eat it. Because the Kingdom of God was or is not about what you eat or drink but about whether a person lives righteously in right standing with God which comes through repentance in the case of sin, peace and joy as it is lived when one follows the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not laws.

In a way, it is a reiteration of Jesus in the book of Mark when He says that it is not what goes into a man that defiles him, but it is rather what comes out of him that defiles him. We can take in all sorts of things, but we can choose our actions and the manner by which we act.

[FJismyheadship]

Thanks you guys!

I have seen him twice since I was told this, and he hasn't said anything to me. A mutual friend said he's probably praying for God to "convict" me to not go into a bar. I'm sorry, but if God hasn't done it before... why would he do it now?

It's not like I'm giving up church to go anyway. I go to church in the morning, and in the evening. I wait til AFTER church to go karaoke. Everyone there knows me and looks out for me, both when I'm there and when I'm not. The older women are good to talk to when I need someone to talk to, and the older men treat me like I'm their daughter/granddaughter. Theres a potluck Sunday at 5:30, but I wont be there. I'm going to church in the evening, and then I'm going to karaoke... and probably somebody will save me some food. All of them KNOW I go to church. They don't try to get me drunk (although one or two might buy me a drink every once in a while) and on the rare occasion that I DO drink, they make sure I don't drink too much... all of them. And lastly, theres a list of names and numbers behind the bar of people for them to call in the event that I do get sloshed and none of them are able to help me get home.