" I have a lot of problems with you people..."

For those who may not recognize the above quote, it was spoken by Frank Costanza on the television show Seinfeld. Forced by rampant consumerism to boycott Christmas, Mr. Costanza creates a new holiday, Festivus. Key elements of Festivus are the Festivus Pole (a simple metal pole to replace the gaudy Christmas tree with all its tinsel), feats of strength (in which family members may challenge one another to various displays of brawn) and the airing of grievances (in which family members are free to "get it all out").

Well I don't know if he has dragged the pole out of the crawl space or not, but for Florida Baptist Witness editor, James A. Smith, Sr., Festivus has come early. Upon reading his latest editorial, Three Cheers for the Alcohol Resolution, Smith seems to have a lot of problems with some people and it has come the time for the airing of grievances . He is harsh towards Wiley Drake, saying,

"it was sad that the Convention elected a man more known for his microphone-hogging, self-indulgent and almost always out-of-order motions than for his serious support for the work of the Convention through the Cooperative Program. But, we laughed, and that’s what seemed to be the most important qualification for this office."

He seems to have a bone to pick with bloggers (and the secular media). He says,

"I could write about the often overstated role of the so-called “bloggers,” the Internet diarists/activists/politicians who indeed impacted this year’s meeting — especially the introduction of motions, the Resolutions Committee debate and less clearly the presidential election. The bloggers are eagerly pointing to The New York Times and TIME Magazine stories crediting the movement with the new president’s election, even though the secular media — as in this occasion — are almost always wrong in their evaluations of SBC annual meetings."

He seems to paint bloggers as self-congratulatory and delusional as to their actual influence, and yet he spends an entire paragraph touting the "front and center" leadership of Florida Baptists, saying that they are the SBC'c "best and brightest." Triumphalism is certainly within his rights, I suppose, but not immediately after criticizing the inflated self-worth of others.

But he saves his most expansive criticism for those who spoke against Resolution #5, or the Resolution Against Alcohol, especially Pastor Ben Cole. While he says he sympathizes with those who opposed the resolution, he says he finds the debate "bewildering" and can't seem to fathom how anyone could argue against such a "wise, thoughtful resolution." In an effort to help Mr. Smith understand, the way one argues against an (at best) un-biblical or (at worst) anti-biblical resolution is by turning to God's inerrant, sufficient Word. I think Daniel Whitfield does a fine job of that here:
Alcohol and the Bible.

To his credit, Mr. Smith recognizes that Scripture does not prohibit alcohol use, only alcohol abuse. And yet he still feels compelled to defend the mandate for total abstinence. He borrows the oft used defenses or prohibition, including the "weaker brother" argument and the assumption that alcohol, like polygamy and slavery, is somehow inherently immoral, dangerous, and destructive. He even quotes a pamphlet from the SBERLC which states, "Additionally, the Bible encourages Christians, as salt and light (Matt. 5:13-16), to deliver society from alcohol’s devastating personal and social effects.” Really? REALLY?! Who knew?

He takes a final parting shot at Ben Cole, Wade Burleson, and all the others who both oppose this resolution and oppose the overly-restrictive new IMB policies when he rails,

So, this is the kind of Christian liberty that is desired of missionaries and other leaders in Southern Baptists life — the right to drink booze, speak in tongues and hold as valid baptisms at churches believing in baptismal regeneration? I cannot imagine that the vast majority of grassroots Southern Baptists agree with this notion of Christian liberty.

Dishonest. Mischaracterization. Straw man. Pick one.

I guess I may be simple minded, but I fail to see how we can label unwise what the Bible does not. It seems so clear, biblically, that the ABUSE of alcohol is what Scripture warns of. And please save the "weaker brother" argument. In 1 Corinthians, the possibility of causing a weaker brother to stumble does not result in a blanket prohibition of meat. They were encouraged to act in love toward the weaker brother and then the matter was left TO THE INDIVIDUAL'S CONSCIENCE.

To be honest, there is more biblical warrant to issue a resolution on speeding than on alcohol use. Speeding is dangerous. Speeding causes accidents. Speeding kills people. And speeding is against the law. And why don't we have a resolution prohibiting the watching of television for entertainment? One could argue that it's not wise and leads to sloth, as well as exposing us to various evils. Why don't we pass a resolution against busyness? God calls us to sabbath. Overworking tears families apart. Why alcohol and not these resolutions? Because this is a resolution that makes us feel like we are making a difference, and most of us won't have to change a thing.

In closing, I am a little curious as to the final words in the quote by Dr. Paige Patterson. He says, "Positively, the resolution was adopted by 90 percent of the messengers, a critically important resolution in light of some pastors who now openly boast of imbibing alcohol.” I am interested if he knows these pastors or if he's only been told of this phenomenon. I bet I know where they are. They're probably out boozing it up with the hyper-calvinists and half of the 16 million SBCers. Someone let me know if you find them.

Dave