Great post! Leslie Nielsen fan here, BTW. Funny story. I had only seen the TV edited version of Airplane 2, so when my twin boys were about 12, we sat down to watch it together. Only it wasn't the TV edited version. Oops. We didn't make it through the opening scene. My sons have never forgotten it.
I totally agree with the underlying premise regarding the misguided attempts at prohibition, regardless of what our current favorite taboo may be. The Gospel changes hearts one at a time, and changed hearts change the culture, not the other way around.
Wow this one hits home for me! Would love to discuss at some point. I have a deep understanding of drinking. And I definitely would say it is NEVER a good time to start drinking. Furthermore I think your choice to never start is a WISE choice!
I can think of no other point in Christian history in which the "the Church" had more acclaim, influence, and/or actual authority while ALSO being so sure it's about to be persecuted into oblivion. I fear the rhetoric has us on the path towards some sort of intra-USA Crusade; all the while "Christian" influence has reached dizzying heights.
The promise of Jesus that we would actually be persecuted (I. E. not the majority of wielding the power, actively being harmed or killed for believing in Him) and exhortation that "to live is to die" sure has me scratchingy head over the last couple decades. It seems like we should be intentional about not being in authority and offering influence (soft power?... Hospitality?). When has legislating morality actually, effectively changed the warp and woof of humanity's crooked nature? Under cover of enforcing the legislated morality, however, many non-Christian abuses of power have been perpetrated.
Grasping for power seems pretty unChristian, IMO.
As to your excellent, provocative hook - I think it's a perfect example of your premise and my response. However, if the denominations that change their stances on alcohol to be more permissive or the ones that maintain/increase their abstinence so that it becomes a "sin" that many are prone to hide (where further secret darkness can proliferate), it seems they should find it a moral responsibility to offer recovery, training, and/or treatment. To drive it underground or to bring it into the permissive open invites an increase in consumption. Statistically, too many are going to have a problem with it, so local churches/districts should aid in fostering AA groups, connections to treatment programs (modern medicines that entirely curb the cravings!?), and removal of stigma for a common malady rather than a shameful thing to be hidden.
Surely it's common sense these days: whatever social issue becomes a legislative agenda item sees an odd rise in use out of curiosity, transgressiveness, and/or stocking up before it's gone. There's a reasonable case to be made that legalizing certain concerns is NOT a moral agreement but rather a path to invite greater scrutiny, safety, taxable returns, and research into minimizing (harm of?) the thing. However, effective legislation isn't our country's present strong suit, and a more common sense idea like this can feel radical to hard-liners.
Thanks for sharing. I do think there is a distinction to be made between a membership commitment and a "sin list"... but that distinction is hard to make when people don't even know what membership means or why it is needed in the first place. I'm not sure the alcohol battle was won by anyone as much as the battle-lines changed, and now the battle is over whether membership even matters at all in the first place. I have concerns for that trend--but it's a trend nonetheless
I always appreciated your dad's thoughts on alcohol. I remember in his Tuesday column he once wrote an article titled "Abstinence... I'll Drink to That" where he talked about the issues of teetotaling versus moderation and the pros and cons of each. Your dad made me think a lot about what is permissible but not necessarily beneficial. Whether one drinks or not carries with it a responsibility not only to oneself but also to their family, friend group, and society at large.
He often said that if people on both sides of an issue are equally disgruntled with your public thoughts, you're probably doing okay. I think this article captures that same tone. Appreciate your thoughts, as always.
thanks much, Ken! I didn't love bringing up alcohol stuff back when it was a constant topic of parochial conversation... I just eye rolled, but now that we don't talk about it as much I'm interested in it a bit
This is great Dave. There is something fundamentally different with a theology that wants to force change through power and a faith that wants to transform through love. It seems all of our attempts at legislating morality tend to bring backlash. I appreciate your wisdom. Cheers!
" There is something fundamentally different with a theology that wants to force change through power and a faith that wants to transform through love"
Great post! Leslie Nielsen fan here, BTW. Funny story. I had only seen the TV edited version of Airplane 2, so when my twin boys were about 12, we sat down to watch it together. Only it wasn't the TV edited version. Oops. We didn't make it through the opening scene. My sons have never forgotten it.
I totally agree with the underlying premise regarding the misguided attempts at prohibition, regardless of what our current favorite taboo may be. The Gospel changes hearts one at a time, and changed hearts change the culture, not the other way around.
Oh boy—I have a similar story I cut from this piece! LOL
Helpful.
Wow this one hits home for me! Would love to discuss at some point. I have a deep understanding of drinking. And I definitely would say it is NEVER a good time to start drinking. Furthermore I think your choice to never start is a WISE choice!
yeah a lot of this was tongue-in-cheek stuff but thanks for reading!
You tongue-in-
cheek? 🤣
Really excellent.
I can think of no other point in Christian history in which the "the Church" had more acclaim, influence, and/or actual authority while ALSO being so sure it's about to be persecuted into oblivion. I fear the rhetoric has us on the path towards some sort of intra-USA Crusade; all the while "Christian" influence has reached dizzying heights.
The promise of Jesus that we would actually be persecuted (I. E. not the majority of wielding the power, actively being harmed or killed for believing in Him) and exhortation that "to live is to die" sure has me scratchingy head over the last couple decades. It seems like we should be intentional about not being in authority and offering influence (soft power?... Hospitality?). When has legislating morality actually, effectively changed the warp and woof of humanity's crooked nature? Under cover of enforcing the legislated morality, however, many non-Christian abuses of power have been perpetrated.
Grasping for power seems pretty unChristian, IMO.
As to your excellent, provocative hook - I think it's a perfect example of your premise and my response. However, if the denominations that change their stances on alcohol to be more permissive or the ones that maintain/increase their abstinence so that it becomes a "sin" that many are prone to hide (where further secret darkness can proliferate), it seems they should find it a moral responsibility to offer recovery, training, and/or treatment. To drive it underground or to bring it into the permissive open invites an increase in consumption. Statistically, too many are going to have a problem with it, so local churches/districts should aid in fostering AA groups, connections to treatment programs (modern medicines that entirely curb the cravings!?), and removal of stigma for a common malady rather than a shameful thing to be hidden.
Surely it's common sense these days: whatever social issue becomes a legislative agenda item sees an odd rise in use out of curiosity, transgressiveness, and/or stocking up before it's gone. There's a reasonable case to be made that legalizing certain concerns is NOT a moral agreement but rather a path to invite greater scrutiny, safety, taxable returns, and research into minimizing (harm of?) the thing. However, effective legislation isn't our country's present strong suit, and a more common sense idea like this can feel radical to hard-liners.
Thanks for sharing. I do think there is a distinction to be made between a membership commitment and a "sin list"... but that distinction is hard to make when people don't even know what membership means or why it is needed in the first place. I'm not sure the alcohol battle was won by anyone as much as the battle-lines changed, and now the battle is over whether membership even matters at all in the first place. I have concerns for that trend--but it's a trend nonetheless
I always appreciated your dad's thoughts on alcohol. I remember in his Tuesday column he once wrote an article titled "Abstinence... I'll Drink to That" where he talked about the issues of teetotaling versus moderation and the pros and cons of each. Your dad made me think a lot about what is permissible but not necessarily beneficial. Whether one drinks or not carries with it a responsibility not only to oneself but also to their family, friend group, and society at large.
He often said that if people on both sides of an issue are equally disgruntled with your public thoughts, you're probably doing okay. I think this article captures that same tone. Appreciate your thoughts, as always.
thanks much, Ken! I didn't love bringing up alcohol stuff back when it was a constant topic of parochial conversation... I just eye rolled, but now that we don't talk about it as much I'm interested in it a bit
...and maybe not. Good reasoning.
;-)
getting some notes from others worried they wouldn't be able to keep moderation going (like I confessed about myself)
Thank you.
thanks for reading
This is great Dave. There is something fundamentally different with a theology that wants to force change through power and a faith that wants to transform through love. It seems all of our attempts at legislating morality tend to bring backlash. I appreciate your wisdom. Cheers!
bro this quote needs to travel far:
" There is something fundamentally different with a theology that wants to force change through power and a faith that wants to transform through love"
Brilliant
literally just added that quote to the article. That sums it up precisely.