Abstinence makes my consumer heart grow less wronger?

Whilst I have been burrowing my head in the sand of deep church I notice that the blog world has been pulsing with debate about the southern baptist decision to abstain from alcohol [John and Helen both have good posts on this].

Now I'm not southern baptist, or baptist from any other point of the compass [i was going to say I'm not even American but due to an accident of birth i hold dual citizenship] so what on earth has this got to do with me.  As I read the posts and comments on christian view on alcohol and whether to abstain or not, I'll tell you what I thought...

'How dare any institution ,or any person for that matter, tell me how I should live my life!  If I want to drink alcohol then dammit, I will!  And what's even better is I can think of bible verses to back me up'

What I wanted to do was write a long post ridiculing people who lived by such legalistic notions and celebrating my freedom to do what I want, with some of those good sounding bible verses thrown in and then go for a pint or two...

But the more I thought about the more I find myself trapped in my own prison, in which I am the jailer - I am not really free I am self obsessed, selfish and unable to accept that anyone would want to deny themselves something - such that i feel i have to assert my right to do what I want free of all restraint.

Is practicing abstinence really such a bad thing?  In a consumer dominated world, when i can have what I want when I want it at my convenience - that I have come to expect this as my right?  Maybe if i want to start detoxing from the effects of my consumer addiction praticing abstinence is in fact a good thing?  Certainly if i was a recovering alcoholic for instance the southern baptists would sound an ideal church for me to go - maybe as someone who is as touch with his consumption as an alcoholic is with their drinking I need to go along as well?

Not that I know any southern baptists, which is a shame, but if I did I wouldn't offer them alcoholic drink if they came to dinner out of respect of their convictions, i wouldn't meet them in a pub either, in fact i wouldn't try and drink alcohol in front of them out of respect for their practice.  So why should I start now on the internet telling them they are wrong - when i am reacting out of my own wrongness and self addiction?

Comments

[grace]

Paul,
I think the issue isn't about what is wrong. Neither our abstinence nor our liberty make us righteous. To focus on either with the belief that they do make us righteous is an error.

Having said that though, imposing religious rules on others is a hindrance to their liberty in Christ. It is a weight of religious obligation that should not be imposed on others.

[Kamsin]

I guess my problem with this kind of rule making is that we judge others by the rules we set for ourselves. So for example, maybe God was challenging someone about abstinence, then that person takes it that everyone has to do the same thing to prove how spiritual they are. I guess I'd want to try and remember that we are all on a journey and just because I've overcome some particular issue doesn't mean I should judge others who are still dealing with it, or even assume that it is something God is wanting to deal with that in their life.

Anyway, I'm really behind on reading your blog. Will have to come back over the w/e to try and catch up with some of the deep church stuff.

[Greg Laughery]

Denying ourselves things in regards to consumer addiction is highly appropriate, but I wonder if having a beer has to fit in that category?

In respecting the other's convictions, I'm agreed. Good point. At the same time, on issues such as these, there could also be a loving challenge that might bring to the surface manipulative and dubious perspectives, of course not forgetting that one has their own on some issues, that seek to control others.

[RCM- Steve]

Yep, been reading the latest "pulsing debate" mostly on John's & Bob's blogsites. Wow, what a sensitive subject. And I thought John's previous postings on homosexuality were quite a stir! I guess I didn't realize our "right to drink" is seemingly as deeply rooted as our right to sexuality.

As a non-drinker I have nothing against those who drink responsibly. As a minister of recovery for two & a half decades, I am well aware of the destructiveness of alcohol on societies, families, and individuals.

My reservations with SBC's public pronouncement is more along the lines of the danger that imposing external standards may bring, especially when this goes beyond scripture. These rules, as well-meaning as they may be, become measuring sticks by which one individual judges another. I know, I've done it. And I've had it been done to me, by a Southern Baptist no less. Unfortunately, the SBC has a history of not only producing edicts, but has had all the attending negative consequences as well.

Not that they don't do a ton of good things, and are a witness of Jesus. But by and large they are rather viewed as a legalistic denomination over here in the States. Case in point: I visited a small church in a mountain town here in California last weekend. Their name was B******** Community Fellowship. They are affiliated with the SBC, but their pastor rallied the church to change their name, partly because their old name of B***** Baptist Church was keeping a number of people away. Now they have a thriving congregation that is truly reflective of their community, and a lot more visitors stop by while passing through or on vacation.

Well, maybe that's a poor example, but my point is that externalities can be as harmful as they are helpful, and I think we all need to be wise in imposing external standards of conduct. If we are walking with the Lord, His righteousness will come from within and will be seen externally in our speech and actions.

[Paul]

Thanks Grace, i agree with you. I was in my post trying to focus on my reaction - and mainly my iniitial reaction was born out of anger that anyone dare tell me or anyone else how to live their life.

Of course that raises a wider Q which is if i react against someone having a closed commumal rule as part of their rule of faith - am i just as bad wanting them to have no rule - i.e. be like me? Am i infact doing exactly the same as them out of my own me centric viewpoint??

[Paul]

Thanks Kamsin - do you think that even when we don't have explicit rules we still make implicit ones and use them to judge? I think i am often guilty of comparing myself to others - usally my best to their worst to make me come off a shining example of virtue...

Do you think there is a place for communities to have a rule just as much as there is for communities to have a rule of no [visible] rules?

I know i would hate it because i don't want anyone telling me what to do when. but that is me and mostly why i wrote this to confront my own self focus...

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on deep church as well :)

[Paul]

Good points Greg - i don't think beer is an issue per se, well i do have issues like it is cold and who's round is it - but that's just my own personal hang ups :)

I wouldn't seek to become the SW London branch of the southern baptists as i wouldn't be able to hold up to their rule - however those who can and wish too, good luck and have fun. OJs are on me :)

[Paul]

Thanks Steve - i thnk anything that effects are right to chose for ourselves what we want to do/be/have etc gets a strong reaction - my reaction is as i said, it's my life who the hell is anyone else to tell me how to live it? or try and limit what i want to do?

You are right, rules etc are ripe for manipulation, a mentality of meeting the external standard etc - me i don't even get that far cos the only rules i want to keep our my own and only then when i want too ;)

[Rupert Ward]

Hmmm. My initial reaction is to react against people imposing their "rule" on others. As i was reading, i was going: "yes paul, go for it, write a long post, ridiculing others for imposing these rules on others".

I gave up drink for 4 years or so ... but never imposed it on others. I went to the pub. i was happy for others to drink when i was around. I just didn't wish to drink. (gosh i was COMMITTED in those days!). Actually it was a good thing to do, as i detoxed from drinking too much in my non-faith days.

BUT as i think about it, it is interesting that we don't rail against monasteries imposing their "rule" on those who want to be part of their community ... give up your possessions, live a simple life, pray at certain times, no TV or cinema, etc. Infact we make a virtue of it, while we buy our new IPOD or car or computer or ...

Mmmm. I wonder if we are being inconsistent?

[Debbie]

I definitely reckon abstinence can be a good thing as it makes us focus on something bigger than satisfying our needs... isn't that why Jesus talked about fasting. Whether that should be imposed by someone else or an institution is a different matter & can make it become legalistic & lose the significance & benefit in a spiritual life if the point is missed.
As for respecting other people's belief's - absolutely! does the same apply for people who aren't able to enjoy luxuries??? :)

[Paul]

Being inconsistent would seem to be the case rupert - but then again what are the motives for that? Is it cos when it involves "church" i have a stake in how church should be - at least the church i want to be part of? Whereas a monastry seems to be about a voluntary way of life rather than an impostion?

[Paul]

thanks debbie - i think abstinece flushes a lot of things out, not least how we spend our money/time etc and makes me realise what i really value/want most - cos i get withdrawal symptoms. I think we are quite happy to talk about fasting and to chose what we want to fast but as soon as a group say well we don't want to drink it would seem that the reaction is to cry 'legalism' which strikes me as a form of legalism in and of itself.

What did you mean by your last comment, i'm intrigued?

[Debbie]

i thought you'd get my cryptic comment! It's very big of you to say you wouldn't drink in front of someone who's beliefs mean they don't drink, but how about drinking in front of someone who's medically prevented from drinking??? Or does it stop you from showing off all your nice stuff to people who can't afford it? Why do we have a bigger respect for people's belief's than for their unchangeable situation?

[Paul]

thanks babe, medically prevented from drinking - yes those drugs don't help. Then again i drink a lot less as a result.

Or i invite people to use my stuff rather than show it off...

And of course all these things in an ideal world would work out both ways...

:)

[Rupert Ward]

Yes - good comment, but i guess people have the choice to join a church too? I think that things need to explicit - where things are much more dangerous are when things aren't explicit ... people get involved in something and later discover it different from what was made explicit.

From what i understand, the denomination concerned is very clear about it abstinence rule?

I am not trying to defend it really ... i wouldn't join a church like that ... i guess i am making an argument for consistency.