The Bible and Alcohol, by Daniel Wallace, ThM, Phd.

In a recent letter, a visitor to the Biblical Studies Foundation web site asked, “Could you help explain whether the Bible promotes drinking alcohol or whether it condemns it.”

This is obviously a concern to many Christians—and for good reason! With the rampant abuse of alcohol in this country, resulting in shattered lives and tens of thousands of deaths each year, any person with a conscience should be deeply concerned about this issue. However, caution is also needed in a different direction: too often Christians have moral outrage because of abuses of one of God’s gifts—outrage that leads to a condemnation of those who are not abusers. Things that once were issues are often now regarded as normal activities. For example, when my grandmother and grandfather were dating, her parents were concerned about this young man because he liked to go to football games. That was taboo for them. Some Christians have condemned others for wearing make-up, going to the opera, or even sending Christmas cards. Christians, it seems, have an incredible ability to invent rules and regulations. It’s endemic to human nature—but it’s also a modern, unvarnished form of Pharisaism.

Our attitude toward alcohol may well be conditioned by our culture more than we realize. Since the days of Prohibition, many believers have simply assumed that partaking of alcoholic beverages was sinful. What is interesting is that in many other countries God-fearing Christians see no problem with alcoholic beverages. (When I was on sabbatical in England, for example, I heard the pastor at an evangelical church use an illustration which involved alcohol in a positive light. He was speaking about our attitude toward little disasters—such as when one brings home the groceries and the one sack that had the Sherry in it falls to the ground and the Sherry bottle breaks! The very casualness of this illustration put in bold relief the difference in attitude between many American Christians and many European Christians regarding alcoholic beverages. If a pastor in the States were to use the same illustration, most churches would censure him for it if not outright sack him.)

One question we must wrestle with is this: If there is a subcultural Christian prohibition that goes beyond scripture, are we obligated to follow it? Should we even endorse it? Ignore it? Fight against it? As we all know, there are numerous Christian taboos that go beyond scripture, depending on when and where one lives. Perhaps this one can be seen as paradigmatic for how to treat the others.

At all points, we must seek to be biblical. This requires resisting the temptation to go beyond what the Bible restricts. As I began to look into this topic, I was actually quite amazed at the biblical writers’ attitude toward alcohol. I had expected it to be far more negative than it really was. One lesson I have learned from this is that although I think that I am being biblical, often my tradition and Christian subculture shape my thinking more than I realize.

Preliminary Framework: Grey Areas

A word should be said about grey areas to begin with. Some Christians view grey areas as those moral zones in which one believer has the right to brow-beat another. Thus, if one believer thinks it is wrong for another to go to football games, the first believer has the right to exercise judgment on the second. This ‘sin-sniffing’ delves into all areas, and the things that get lumped into this cauldron of evil deeds are quite numerous: attending the opera, playing cards, atttending any kind of motion pictures, owning a television, listening to rock or country-western or even Mozart, investing in the stock market, observing Christmas with a decorated tree, reading mystery novels, spouses having separate checking accounts, women wearing make-up or slacks, etc. What all these areas have in common is that they are not discussed in scripture. Thus, if one wants to label them as evil, he either has to do some rather ingenious interpretation of the Bible or else simply appeal to one’s conscience as the standard by which others are to be measured.

We all can see the ludicrousness of such a stance when it comes to grey zones that are inoffensive to me. But when there is something that I have found offensive, the natural tendency is for me to make sure everyone else around me abides by the same rules.

One of the hallmarks of modern American Christianity is its preoccupation with a  ‘formula faith.’ Tremendously popular are conferences that address conflicts between parents and youth and how to resolve them. One well-known such conference turns (occasionally) good advice into hundreds of rules that can suffocate one’s walk with God.  We are enamored of the ‘How to’ books that work for others and perhaps may work for us. All too often, once a person has found a tailor-made Bible-reading schedule, or a tailor-made pattern of prayer or diet or method of raising children or love-making technique, he writes a book about it and proclaims its universal applicability and even its normativeness. The reason such sells? Because legalism is endemic to human nature. We can package such as ‘practical Christianity’ or ‘a wise and godly lifestyle’ or ‘principles to live by,’ but at bottom when such advice goes beyond the scriptures and turns into more than advice, it is legalism. Such a preoccupation with legalism is seen in church membership requirements, missionary and pastoral ordination bodies, and Bible college/seminary codes of conduct. Take a look at a catalog of almost any evangelical institute of higher learning. You will notice that all too often the code of conduct section will spend an inordinate amount of space making grey areas taboo while spending almost no space articulating what the Bible declares to be sinful behavior.

Church historian M. James Sawyer recently spoke at the western regional meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society on Sola Scriptura in the Protestant tradition. In his lecture he noted the irony of the modern milieu:

Among contemporary denominations we find statements such as that of the [denomination’s name withheld], who in their licensing and ordination questionnaire asks candidates if they agree that the Bible is the ‘only and infallible rule of faith and practice’ for the believer.  (The questionnaire on the very next line asks the candidate if he agrees to abstain from the use of alcohol in all forms.) 

The point we are trying to make here is twofold: (1) Christians tend to compile rules and regulations that go beyond what is written; and (2) when such grey zones are considered evil, those who do not abide by such rules are often viewed as ‘the weaker brother.’ In reality, the weaker brother in scripture is the one who has too many scruples, not too few (cf. Romans 14)! It is a tragic irony that as one matures in the faith, all too often his life collects more and more oppressive chains of legalism. As much as there may well be good reasons for one to personally hold to certain convictions,[1]  we must be very careful about extending such beyond ourselves.[2]

The Biblical Data:
Wine and other Alcoholic Beverages in the Bible

The following are some roughly random notes on wine and other alcoholic beverages in the Bible. Even a casual look at the scriptures reveals a much different perspective than what most modern American Christians have about this topic.

In general, we can say that the Bible neither condemns drinking per se nor promotes it. Drinking alcoholic beverages is one of those grey areas that is a matter of one’s personal conscience. But there is more in scripture than just this individualistic approach.

Isn’t it Really Grape Juice?

Some take the words for wine to mean ‘grape juice.’ If this were so, then why would there be prohibitions against drunkenness? One cannot get drunk on grape juice. Further, Jesus’ first miracle was changing the water into wine at the wedding of Cana in Galilee. He made between 120 and 180 gallons of wine! Even if this had been grape juice, it would soon turn to wine because the fermentation process would immediately begin. But it most certainly was not grape juice: the head waiter in John 2:10 said, “Every man sets out the good wine first, then after the guests have drunk freely, the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.” The verb translated ‘drunk freely’ is almost always used of getting drunk (and is so translated in the NRSV here). In the least, the people at this wedding feast, if not drunk, would certainly be drinking alcohol fairly freely (if not, this verb means something here that is nowhere else attested[3]). And this makes perfect sense in the context: The reason why a man brings out the poorer wine later is because the good wine has numbed the senses a bit. Grape juice would hardly mask anything. Note also Acts 2:13—”they are full of sweet wine”—an inaccurate comment made about the apostles when they began speaking in tongues, as though this explained their unusual behavior. The point is: If they were full of grape juice would this comment even have made any sense at all? That would be like saying, “Well, they’re all acting strange and silly because they have had too much orange juice this morning!”

There are other references to alcoholic beverages in the Bible: Several times in the first books of the Bible, wine and strong drink are prohibited to those who take a Nazarite vow (cf. Num 6, Judges 13). Even grape juice and fresh and dried grapes (i.e., raisins, as the NIV renders the word) are prohibited to the Nazarite (Numbers 6:3)![4]  But that restriction is only for those who make this vow. If someone today wants to claim that believers do not have the right to drink alcohol on the analogy of a Nazarite vow (as some today are fond of doing), they also should say that believers ought not to eat Raisin Bran!

Negative Statements about Wine Indicate that it is not Grape Juice

Further, the Bible at times speaks very harshly about becoming enslaved to drink or allowing it to control a person, especially to the point of drunkenness. Proverbs 20:1—“Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, And whoever is intoxicated by it is not wise” (NASB). Cf. also Prov 21:17 (where heavy drinking and gluttony are equally condemned); 1 Sam 1:14; Isa 5:11, 22; 28:1 (drunkenness is condemned); 28:7; 29:9; 56:12; Jer 23:9; 51:7; Joel 3:3. In the New Testament notice: Eph 5:18 (“do not get drunk with wine”); 1 Tim 3:3, 8; Titus 1:7 ([elders and deacons ought not be] “addicted to wine or strong drink”); Titus 2:3 (older women, who would serve as role models to the younger ones, must not be addicted to wine). As well, numerous passages use wine or drunkenness in an analogy about God’s wrath, immorality, etc. (cf. Rev. 14:8, 10; 16:19; 17:2; 18:3).

The significance of these negative statements is just this: If this were only grape juice, why would excess in drinking it be condemned? If this were only grape juice, why are certain mental effects attributed to it (cf., e.g., Psalm 60:3)? One can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that wine is always grape juice, for then the negative statements in scripture make no sense; those who say that it is only grape juice tend to focus just on the neutral and positive passages, conveniently allowing them to condemn the drinking of real wine at all times. But even this position is not logical: If the Bible only speaks of grape juice, then it makes no comment about alcoholic wine. And if so, then it does not directly prohibit it. And if we are going to prohibit something that the Bible does not address, why stop at wine? Why don’t we include the ballet, opera, football games, country-western music (actually, I might be in favor of banning this one!), salt water fishing, zippers on clothes, etc. Once legalism infests the soul it doesn’t know where to quit.

In sum, is wine the same as grape juice? No, for if it were, the Bible would hardly condemn the abuse of such. Those who argue that the two are identical simply cannot handle the passages that speak about excess.

Neutral and Positive References to Alcoholic Beverages in the Bible

At the same time, there are several neutral, almost casual references to alcoholic beverages. Genesis 14:18 refers to Melchizedek, a type of Christ, as offering wine to Abram; Nehemiah 2:1 refers to the king drinking wine (Nehemiah was required to taste it first to make sure it was not poisoned); Esther 5:6; 7:1-2 speaks of wine that Esther (the godly Jewess) drank with the king; Job 1:13 refers to righteous Job’s family drinking wine; Daniel 10:3 speaks of drinking wine as a blessing after a time of fasting. Some of Jesus’ parables are about wine, wineskins, vineyards (cf. Matt 9:17; 21:33; even John 15 speaks of God the Father as the vinedresser!). Paul tells Timothy to drink some wine for his stomach’s sake and not just water (1 Tim 5:23). The same Greek and Hebrew terms that were used to speak of the abuses of wine are used in these passages. One cannot argue, therefore, that alcoholic beverages are in themselves proscribed, while grape juice is permitted. The lexical data cannot be so twisted.

There are, as well, positive statements about alcoholic beverages: Deut 14:26 implies that it is a good thing to drink wine and strong drink to the Lord: “And you may spend the money for whatever your heart desires, for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household” (NASB). Psalm 4:7 compares joy in the Lord to the abundance of wine; Psalm 104:14-15 credits God as the creator of wine that “makes a man’s heart glad” (cf. also Hos 2:8); honoring the Lord with one’s wealth is rewarded with the blessings of abundant stores of wine (Prov 3:10);  love is compared to wine repeatedly in the Song of Songs, as though good wine were similarly sweet (1:2, 4; 4:10; 7:9). The Lord prepares a banquet with “well-aged wines… and fine, well-aged wines” for his people (Isa 25:6) [obviously this cannot be grape juice, for aging does nothing but ferment it!].

The lack of wine is viewed as a judgment from God (Jer 48:33; Lam 2:12; Hos 2:9; Joel 1:10; Hag 2:16); and, conversely, its provision is viewed as a blessing from the Lord (cf. Gen 27:28; Deut 7:13; 11:14; Joel 2:19, 24; 3:18; Amos 9:13-14). Cf. also Isa 55:1; Jer 31:12; Zech 9:17.

Indeed, there was even the Passover tradition that went beyond the biblical teaching: by the time of the first century, every adult was obliged to have four glasses of wine during the Passover celebration. Jesus and his disciples did this in the Last Supper.[5] The fact that the wine of the Passover was a symbol the Lord used for his blood and for the new covenant implicitly shows that our Lord’s view of wine was quite different from that of many modern Christians.

What is truly remarkable here are the many positive statements made about wine and alcoholic beverages in the Bible.[6] Wine is so often connected with the blessings of God that we are hard-pressed to figure out why so many modern Christians view drink as the worst of all evils. Why, if one didn’t know better, he might think that God actually wanted us to enjoy life! Unfortunately, the only Bible most of our pagan friends will read is the one written on our lives and spoken from our lips. The Bible they know is a book of ‘Thou shalt nots,’ and the God they know is a cosmic killjoy.

I think the best balance on this issue can be see in Luke 7:33-34: John the Baptist abstained from drinking wine; Jesus did not abstain [indeed, people called him a drunkard! Although certainly not true, it would be difficult for this charge to have been made had Jesus only drunk grape juice]. Both respected one another and both recognized that their individual lifestyles were not universal principles. One man may choose not to drink; another may choose to drink. We ought not condemn another servant of the Lord for his choice.

As well, Romans 14 is a key passage for gleaning principles about how we ought to conduct ourselves in relation to one another on this issue: weaker brothers ought not to judge those whose freedom in Christ allows them to enjoy alcoholic beverages; stronger brothers ought not to disdain weaker brothers for their stance. Whether we drink or not, let us do all things to the glory of God.

Conclusion

There is much more that could be said about this issue; no doubt many readers will respond critically for what was left out. In later essays I hope to address some questions that arise because of this piece.

This brief essay really has no conclusion; rather, this is the first volley in an ongoing discussion. The general contours of biblical teaching are that wine is a blessing from the Lord, something to be enjoyed. But like any good gift from God, it can be abused: in this case, abuse involves addiction and drunkenness. But whenever we condemn others who are able to enjoy God’s good gifts in moderation as though they were abusers, we misrepresent biblical Christianity. At bottom, it seems that biblical Christianity has a much different face than what much of modern Christianity wears. In many respects, we resemble more the ancient Pharisees than the Lord’s disciples.

 

---

 

[1]For example, we all know of some folks whose family history involves alcoholism. Many of these folks rightfully abstain for fear of their own tendencies to abuse alcohol. I have a friend who used to be an alcoholic and now cannot even gargle (since mouthwash usually has a large amount of alcohol) or else he could go into a drinking binge. He recognizes that his own convictions about alcohol are not universally applicable; his friends are sensitive enough not to drink in his presence.

 [2]My views comport with my understanding of what it means to be a New Covenant Christian. Since we have been given the Spirit, we are no longer under the Old Testament law, but now must live by the law of Christ. The Spirit himself guides each one of us. There are, to be sure, several laws that must be obeyed (the New Testament has over two hundred); but as a New Covenant Christian I recognize both that the overriding principle of these commandments is love and that the undergirding power is provided by the Spirit of God.

[3]In the least, the verb mequvskw, when used of drinking, always means at least ‘freely drinking of alcoholic beverages’ (once in the LXX it is used metaphorically of being filled with grain [Hosea 14:8], though even here the imagery might involve a metonymy of cause for effect [if so, grain would mean fermented grain]). LSJ give as the first definition of this verb the causative notion of make drunk, intoxicate; for the passive form of the verb the lexicon gives drink freely, get drunk. BAGD gives the following definition: “cause to become intoxicated; in our lit. only pass. … get drunk, become intoxicated… drink freely, become drunk.”  The semantic domain lexicon by Louw and Nida (23.37) offers this definition (though they incorrectly parse the verb as coming from mequvw): “to drink freely, to drink a great deal, to get drunk.” (LN’s definition for the verb mequvskw [88.285] is “to become intoxicated, to get drunk”; 1 Thess 5:7 uses both verbs interchangeably: “those who get drunk get drunk at night.”)

[4]The very fact that the Hebrew text makes a distinction between wine and grape juice implies that when ‘wine’ is spoken of the fermented drink is in view.

[5] Technically, Jesus and the disciples had only three ritual cups of wine. The fourth cup, which represented the kingdom, was not drunk. Thus, when Jesus prayed in the garden, “If it is your will, take this cup from me” he was referring to the symbolism of the third cup–the cup of redemption by judgment. However, even though they had only three ritual cups, they may well have had more non-ritual wine, for this was allowed.

[6]‘Wine’ occurs 236 times in the NASB, 214 times in the NIV, 230 times in the NRSV, and 210 times in the REB. Now, to be sure, not all of these are in positive statements, but neither are the majority in negatives statements. The most common Hebrew word is nyy (134 times in the MT), while the Greek word  oi\no” occurs in the New Testament 26 times.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.   

Consider sharing this post:

The following is a collection of three posts that I wrote over a period of four weeks.  These posts serve as a foundation in understanding the relatioship of Christianity with the world, particularly the role of Christianity with cultural activities. 

What is Culture?

If you were to scan the entirety of the Bible front-to-back you would not find a word or definition of culture.  With this being the case we need to begin with the English word “culture” and see if this concept matches anything the Bible teaches so that we can see what exactly the Bible says about culture. 

The English word culture is originally derived from the Latin word “colere.”  Colere is an agricultural word that means to “tend, guard, cultivate, and till.”  From this point culture evolved into different figurative meanings.  For instance, it is used in a figurative sense to refer to “cultivation through education,” the “collective customs and achievements of a people,” to the medical usage as “The act or process of growing living material.” 

Irrespective of its usage throughout time, the term culture carries within it a sense of growing and making – both tangible and intangible things.  From growing corn to building buildings, to growing living material in a Petri dish to developing complex mathematical equations, culture encompasses all of these facets.

Culture After the Fall

After understanding culture from a Biblical perspective, it is important to understand the implications of the Fall upon the originally good cultural activities commanded by God of mankind.  In his book – Creation Regained – Albert Wolters shares why it is vitally important for us to understand the relationship between sin and creation and culture:

The central point to make is that, biblically speaking, sin neither abolishes nor becomes identified with creation.  Creation and sin remain distinct, however closely they may be intertwined in our experience.  Prostitution does not eliminate the goodness of human sexuality; political tyranny cannot wipe out the divinely ordained character of the state…In short, evil does not have the power of bringing to naught God’s steadfast faithfulness to the works of his hands (pg. 57).

It is with this in mind that we now consider the Fall of mankind into sin, the scope of its effects upon humanity, creation, and culture, and how we – as Christians – are to distinguish between the “good” and “bad” of culture. 

The Reconciliation of Culture: Living as a Cultural Creator and Reconciler

With this post we observe that God not only reconciled His chosen back to Himself, but the redemptive work of Jesus Christ restores all of creation, including cultural activities.

From Colossians 1.20 we clearly see that Christ’ redemptive work on the cross is not only applicable to mankind, but to all of creation.  “The ‘all things’ of verse 20 occurs five other times in the context,” begins Douglas Moo, “and in each case the referent is the created universe.”

He goes on to say, “And, of course, in this context, Paul goes on to specify that the scope of ‘all things’ includes things on earth or things in heaven.  The neuter form (Greek ta…ta) and the parallelism with verse 16 make clear that all created things are included” (The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, pgs. 134-135). 

The scope of redemption is as great as the scope of the Fall and the effects of sin: it embraces humanity, creation, and cultural activities (Albert Wolters, Creation Regained, pg. 72). 

This means that our involvement within cultural activities is not to be shunned, minimized as unimportant, or lived apart from Christ’ rule over them (Unless these activities are in direct violation to God’s Law).  Your role within cultural activities is as vital as a Pastors role in the local church. 

This is why Wolters went on to say that the distortion created by sin in creation and culture needs to be opposed everywhere:

In the kitchen and the bedroom, in city councils and corporate boardrooms, on the stage and on the air, in the classroom and in the workshop (ibid., 73).

As Christians we play a pivotal role – right here and right now – in directing every cultural activity in submission and obedience to God.     

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.   

Consider sharing this post

Over the last couple of weeks I have defined culture and related the implications of the Fall upon culture through the disobedience of Adam.  Serving as sin’s gatekeeper, Adam’s defiance opened the door for sin which has flooded the earth and entered into the heart of every man, woman, and child, and, even subjugated the entirety of creation itself to its evil throes.

Although this is the case, we discovered that the presence of sin did not abolish cultural activities or mankind’s cultural urges.  However, what sin did do is distort all of humanity, creation, and, consequently, every cultural activity that proceeds from mankind.

What we are about to discover is that God not only reconciled His chosen back to Himself, but the redemptive work of Jesus Christ restores all of creation, including cultural activities!

Colossians 1.19-20

From these two verses we read, “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross” (italics mine).

What stands out in these verses is this simple point: Christ not only reconciles people to God through faith in Him, He also reconciles creation itself.

Many have taken theses verses to refer directly to Christ’s saving work on behalf of humanity, since the word reconcile (Greek: apokatallasso) is used solely in terms of Christ reconciling  people to God.

The following will serve as a brief reason why this is not the case at all.

What does it mean to reconcile?

The English verb, reconcile (Greek: apokatallasso), is derived from a combination of two words: re – again, and conciliate – make friendly.  When you combine the two together you get “to make friendly again.”  In other words, reconcile carries with it the idea of people being on friendly terms again after a dispute or estrangement.

Even though the verb reconcile/reconciliation – as found in the Greek – is used in relationship to humanity being reconciled to God in a salvific sense (Colossians 1.22; Ephesians 2.16; also see Romans 5.10; 1 Corinthians 7.11; 2 Corinthians 5.18-20), this does not mean that the meaning of word is restricted to the salvation of men and women alone.

Then who, or what, can be reconciled?

The context of Colossians 1.20 makes it poignantly clear that Christ redemptive work on the cross is not only applicable to mankind, but to all of creation.  “The ‘all things’ of verse 20 occurs five other times in the context,” begins Douglas Moo, “and in each case the referent is the created universe.”

He goes on to say, “And, of course, in this context, Paul goes on to specify that the scope of ‘all things’ includes things on earth or things in heaven.  The neuter form (Greek ta…ta) and the parallelism with verse 16 make clear that all created things are included” (The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, pgs. 134-135).

The scope of redemption is as great as the scope of the Fall and the effects of sin: it embraces humanity, creation, and cultural activities (Albert Wolters, Creation Regained, pg. 72).

As I said in my previous post, the effects of sin have permeated the entirety of God’s good creation and have caused it to be estranged from Him, to the point that it is groaning for restoration (Romans 8.20-22).

Just like mankind, the reconciliation of creation has not yet occurred in the fullest sense, restoring everything to their original state before the Fall.  No need to worry.  The reconciliation of those for whom Christ died and everything in the world will be culminated in His return and completely made right again with God (Isaiah 52.6-10; 65.13, 17; 2 Peter 3.12-13; 1 John 3.2; Revelation 21.1-8, 22).

Since I’m writing in particularly about cultural activities, I would like for you to see the tremendous implications that Christ’ redemptive act has upon cultural activities themselves.

Practical Implications

Time, nor space, will allow me to address the scope of these implications, but the following will serve as a sufficient example:

Marriage should not be avoided by Christians, but sanctified.  Emotions should not be repressed, but purified.  Sexuality is not simply to be shunned, but redeemed.  Politics should not be declared off-limits, but reformed.  Art ought not to be pronounced worldly, but claimed for Christ.  Business must no longer be relegated to the secular world, but must be made to conform again to God-honoring standards (ibid., 71).

Your involvement within cultural activities is not to be shunned, minimized as unimportant, or lived apart from Christ’ rule over them (Unless these activities are in direct violation to God’s Law).  Your role within cultural activities is as vital as a Pastors role in the local church.

This is why Wolters went on to say that the distortion created by sin in creation and culture needs to be opposed everywhere:

In the kitchen and the bedroom, in city councils and corporate boardrooms, on the stage and on the air, in the classroom and in the workshop (ibid., 73).

The work of a creation and cultural reconciler is not left to the paid professionals.  This work involves every man, woman, and child that considers themselves to be a Christian.  The Gospel creates new people (2 Corinthians 5.17) and its demands encompass all of life, not just Sunday morning (Matthew 28.18-20).

As Christians we play a pivotal role – right here and right now – in directing every cultural activity in submission and obedience to God.

With this in mind, let us briefly look at life as a reconciler.

Living as a Reconciler

In 2 Corinthians 5.18 we are told that, “God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation.”  Although the context of this passage speaks of our role in sharing the Gospel with others and encouraging them to be reconciled to God, I believe that based upon the implications of Colossians 1.20 that we too are to serve as reconcilers of God’s creation.

First off, don’t think that I mean creation or cultural activities need to be saved, or that a new society can be perfectly recreated.  This is not the case at all.

What I am saying is this: creation and culture are to be subjected to God’s sovereign rule, commands, desires, and values.  Jesus Christ lays claim to it all (Ephesians 1.20-21).   Speaking on this same accord, Abraham Kuyper remarked, “There is not one square inch of the entire creation about which Jesus Christ does not cry out, ‘This is mine! This belongs to me!’”

Practically speaking, there are two general ways that we are to live our lives as reconcilers: cultural creators and cultural redeemers.

Cultural Creators

Since God’s original command to create culture was not abrogated by the Fall, these activities are to continue today.  From starting and raising Godly families, to beginning new businesses, making new art, planting new churches, schools, hospitals, and conducting new scientific research.  As Christians we are called to continue God’s command creating culture (I hope that you don’t take this as creating a Christian sub-culture, alone).

Cultural Redeemers

Not only are we to create culture, but we are to redeem culture as well, beginning where we find ourselves today.  We see this no clearer than in 1 Corinthians 7.17-24:

Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him.  This is my rule in all the churches…Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called…So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God.

Whatever cultural activity you find yourself in when called of God to believe in Jesus Christ as your savior, it is in this position that you are to remain.  The position that you find yourself in is the very position that God has assigned and called you to fulfill.  From this passage above, it is quite clear that God has a purpose for you where you are at and not some undisclosed point in the future.

So, are you an actor, actress, artist, businessman or woman, comedian, educator, farmer, journalist, musician, politician, trash collector, or trucker?  If so, this is where the LORD has assigned and called you to serve and it is in this capacity that the LORD has asked for you to remain – not indefinitely – to serve as a cultural redeemer.

As I’ve said earlier, this is accomplished by directing everything in submission and obedience to God.  Does the business you are associated with honor God, or do they look to exploit customers?  Do your comedic routines exalt God and encourage others, or are they filled with mockery?  Is your educational philosophy built upon humanism and evolution, or does it derive from a Christian worldview?

At this point, it’s important to reiterate a quote from my previous posttaken from Albert Wolters, “To the degree that these realities fail to live up to God’s creational design for them, they are misdirected, abnormal, or distorted” (pg. 59).  In whatever way that cultural activities do fail to live up to God’s designs, they need to be directed towards this end once again, not further away by abandoning our role and responsibilities.

The main point that I’m trying to make is this, many people live under the guise that certain activities – such as those listed above – are somehow non-important and to be avoided.  This is not the case at all.  Moreover, due to prevailing cultural influences, the role of Christianity in shaping the culture is being pushed to the sideline, demonized as evil in some cases, mocked by many, and abandoned in large part by the church.

I hope that over the last three weeks you have seen that all forms of culture were not done away with in the Fall, but rather distorted by the entrance of sin.  It is for this reason that Christ needed to reconcile creation and culture itself to its original and good purpose.  If you have placed your faith in Jesus Christ, this is the work that He has called you to carry out upon His behalf.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post

From Christianity and Culture: Christians in our Culture by John Frame: 

In my discussion of film and culture, I identified the general thrust of modern secular liberalism and its antithesis with Christianity. My reviews will deal with those themes in general. Here I wish to be a bit more specific. What follows are certain questions that are always in my mind when I go to films. I would recommend that other Christian viewers ask the same questions. I will not go through this whole list in each review; I will only discuss the ones I think most important to the particular film. 

1. Who wrote the film? Who produced it? Who directed it? Do we know through the writings and previous work of these people anything about their philosophy of life? The previous works of actors are also important. Actors contribute much to the quality of a film, little to its fundamental conception. But actors do tend to sign on to projects with which they have some ideological affinity (assuming financial rewards are not otherwise determinative).  Mel Gibson almost never takes on films with a heavy sexual element; Mickey Rourke almost always does. The presence of certain actors, granting that they sometimes go “against type,” can tell you something about the message of a film. 

2. Is it well-made, aesthetically? Are the production and acting values of high quality? These factors may have little to do with the “message.” But they do tend to determine the extent of the film’s cultural impact, and that is important for our purposes. If a film is well-made, it can have a large impact upon the culture for good or ill. (Of course some bad films also have a major impact!)

3. Is it honest, true to its own position? This is another mark of “quality.”  Generally speaking, an honest film, regardless of its point of view, will have a larger cultural impact than one which blunts its points. 

4. What kind of film is it? Fantasy? Biography? Realistic drama? Comedy?  Obviously each film must be judged according to its purpose and genre. We don’t demand of a fantasy the kind of historical accuracy we demand of a supposedly literal biography.

5. What is the world view of the film? Is it theistic or atheistic? Christian or non-Christian? If non-Christian, is its main thrust relativistic or dogmatic? How does it employ the theme of “equality?” Is there any role for providence, for God? Is the film pessimistic or optimistic? Does the action move in deterministic fashion, or is there a significant role for human choice?

6. What is the plot? What problems do the characters face? Can these problems be correlated in some way with the Fall of mankind in Adam? Does the film in effect deny the Fall, or does it affirm it in some way?

7. Are the problems soluble? If so, how? What methods are available to the characters so that they can find the answers they need?

8. What is the moral stance of the film? Is the film relativistic, dogmatic, or both in some combination? What are its attitudes toward sex, family, human life, property, truth, heart-attitudes? What is the source of moral norms, if any? Does justice prevail?

9. In comedy, what is it that is funny? What are the typical incongruities? Who is the butt of the jokes? (Christians? traditional values? the wicked? the righteous? God? Satan?) Is the humor anarchic? Is it rationality gone awry? Is it bitter or gentle? Does it rely on caricatures? If so, of whom?

10. Are there allusions to historical events, literary works, other films famous people, Scripture, etc. that would give us some idea where the filmmakers are coming from? We should remember, of course, that allusions may be negative, positive, ironic, or merely decorative. A biblical allusion does not necessarily indicate acceptance of biblical values. 

11. What are the chief images of the film? Is there anything interesting about the lighting, the camera angles, the sound, the timing which would reinforce a particular theme? Are there significant symbols?

 

 

12. Are there any explicit religious themes? Christ-figures?  express significant attitudes toward Christ, the clergy, or the church? Does it distort Christianity or present it at its worst? Or does it present it with some insight and/or sympathy? Does it recognize the element of personal piety in people’s lives?  What about Satan, the demons, the occult? Does the film recognize their activity in some way? Is the devil taken seriously? If so, how is he dealt with?  

 Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.   

Consider sharing this post

From Alister McGrath’s, A Life of John Calvin, pgs. 219-222:

The sixteenth century scholar Roland H. Bainton remarked that, when Christianity takes itself seriously, it must either renounce or master the world.  Both these stances can be illustrated from the great upheaval which was the European Reformation.  Many of the radical reformers rejected the coercive structures of contemporary society, refusing to swear oaths, hold any magisterial office, serve in any military capacity, or even bear arms.  Such a radically apolitical and world-renouncing attitude inevitably entailed separation from the world.  Perhapswith the pre-Constantinian church – which existed within, but not as part of, the Roman Empire – as a model, the radicals often conceived of their communities as an “alternative society” within, but not part of, the greater society which surrounded him

The contrast with Calvinism could not be more marked.  If any religious movement of the sixteenthcentury was world-affirming, it was Calvinism.  Yet Calvinism affirmed the world in order to master it, addressing its specific situations rather than luxuriating in abstract speculation.  Time and time again, in both his theology and his spirituality, Calvin refuses to indulge in easy generalizations or abstractions.  In a highly perceptive comparison of Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics and Anthony Trollope’s Doctor Wortle’s School, Stanley Hauerwas points to the peculiarly abstract character of Barth’s ethics, which lends his account of the moral life an aura of unreality; this abstractness is made all the more evident through the comparison with Trollope’s concreteness, in that his account of morality is grounded in individual persons and societies, rather than impersonal principles.  In short, Barth’s ethical thought is not adequately grounded in the realities of human existence.

This weakness is conspicuously absent from Calvin.  Throughout his writings, we find a determination to engage with the objective social existence of human beings, along with the problems and possibilities this brings with it.  It seems that Calvin learned in Strasbourg the lessons which Reinhold Niebuhr learned in downtown Detroit during the 1920s.  In his Leaves from the Notebook of a Tamed Cynic (1929), Niebuhr wrote:

If a minister wants to be a man among men he need only stop creating a devotion to abstract ideals which everyone accepts in theory denies in practice, and to agonize about their validity and practicability in the social issues which he and others face in our present civilization.  That immediately gives his ministry a touch of reality and potency.

Precisely this pattern stands out in Calvin’s spiritual and homiletic writings.  Calvin addresses real and specific human situations – social, political and economic – with all the risks that this precision entails.  Even his analysis of anxiety – a major element of sixteenth century thought – led his followers to regard the overcoming of anxiety as a specifically worldly, rather than other-worldly, activity.

It is perfectly fair to describe Calvin’s thought as “theology anti-theological,” proving this is understood not to entail the absence of a theology, but to highlight the distinctly world-affirming and anti-speculative trajectory of his ideas.  Calvin’s secularization of holiness (Henri Hauser) involved bringing the entire sphere of human existence within the scope of divine sanctification and human dedication.  It is this sanctification of life, of which the sanctification of work is the chief pillar, which stamped its impression upon Calvin’s followers…

Yet a note of caution must be entered.  Those who seem to master the world are often those who have been mastered by it.  Those Christians who are judged to be successes in the world are all too often those Christians who have capitulated to the standards of th world.  The strongly affirmative attitude which undergirds the Calvinist outlook on life is perennially vulnerable; the delicate balance between church and world can too easily be disturbed, leading to their radical separation on the one hand, or – and herein the great danger was perceived to lie – their coalescing on the other.  For latent within Calvinism is a purely profane approach to life, in that the failure to maintain a proper dialectic between God and the world leads to the collapse of the divine into the secular.  Calvinist moral, economic, social and political structures are values, although firmly grounded in theology, could easily become detached from those theological foundations, and maintain an independent existence…

Calvin himself constructed a sophisticated dialectic between faith and the world which allowed scope for positive action within the world while identifying and averting the risks which this entailed.  The form of life which is most praise worthy in the sight of God is that which is useful to society: “however much we may admire celibacy or a philosophical life cut off from everyday life,” the persons best fitted to govern church and society alike are those who have immersed themselves in the experience and practice of everyday life.

Christians are encouraged, even required, to invest in and commit themselves to the world.  There is no place in Calvin’s thought for the medieval monastic attitude towards society, which led to the situation in which individuals renounced the world, while the institution which they served affirmed it.  Yet the Christian, while immersing himself or herself in the affairs and anxieties of the world, must learn to keep it at a critical distance.  Outward investment in and commitment to the world must be accompanied by inward detachment and the fostering of a critical attitude towards the secular.  Believers must actively immerse themselves in the secular sphere, without passively allowing themselves to be submerged by it.  “We are to learn to pass through this world as though it were a foreign country, treading lightly all earthly things and declining the set our hearts on them.”

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.   

Consider sharing this post.

If you were to scan the entirety of the Bible front-to-back you would not find a word or definition of culture.  With this being the case we need to begin with the English word “culture” and see if this concept matches anything the Bible teaches so that we can see what exactly the Bible says about culture. 

Culture Defined

The English word culture is originally derived from the Latin word “colere.”  Colere is an agricultural word that means to “tend, guard, cultivate, and till.”  From this point culture evolved into different figurative meanings.  For instance, it is used in a figurative sense to refer to “cultivation through education,” the “collective customs and achievements of a people,” to the medical usage as “The act or process of growing living material.” 

Irrespective of its usage throughout time, the term culture carries within it a sense of growing and making – both tangible and intangible things.  From growing corn to building buildings, to growing living material in a Petri dish to developing complex mathematical equations, culture encompasses all of these facets.

Now that we have an idea of what exactly culture is, let’s take a look in the Bible to see if there is any concept    

Culture by the Book

After creating mankind in His image and after His likeness, the act of culture begins with God’s blessing of humanity:

“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Genesis 1.28).  

In addition to the tasks encapsulated within this mandate we observe further responsibilities in Genesis 2.15, which says,

“The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and keep it.” 

There is a lot to be said at this point, but I would like to draw our attention to two observations

Creation vs. Culture

The first thing we observe from these passages is the difference between creation and culture.  Simply put, creation is what God makes and culture is what we make.  During his lectures at Pensacola Theological Seminary on Christ and Culture, John Frame said,

Now of course God is sovereign, so everything we make is also his in one sense. Or, somewhat better: creation is what God makes by himself, and culture is what he makes through us. The sun, moon and stars are not culture. The light and darkness are not culture. The basic chemistry of the earth, and the original genetic structure of life forms are not culture; they are God’s creation.

So, from Genesis 1.1 to 1.28 – including humanity – we read of all that God created, which was created by God and is not considered culture.  Now, beginning with Genesis 1.28 cultural activities begin and are further clarified in Genesis 2.15.

Cultural Activities

From these two passages we see that cultural activities are comprised of four facets: filling, subduing, working, and keeping. 

First, culture includes the act of being fruitful, multiplying, and filling the earth.  This act was and is to be brought about through the birth of children in marriages comprised of just one man and one woman (Genesis 1.27; 2.14). 

Second, culture includes the act of subduing the entirety of all the earth and every living thing (also see 1 Peter 2.9; Revelation 1.6; 5.10; 22.5).  This facet of culture carries within it the implication that mankind is to develop the earth’s resources for useful purposes.  Thus, this facet of culture lays the foundation for scientific research and technological advancement (ESV Study Bible). 

In addition to this, this thought carries with it the notion that mankind is to subdue all things both tangible and intangible in a way that glorifies God.  This means that science, philosophy, politics, universities, families, art, music, etc…, are to serve the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10.31; Romans 11.36; Colossians 1.20).

This act of subduing is NOT to be mistaken for tyrannical rule or the exploitation of the earth and living creatures.  The act of subduing is done so as God’s vice-regents.  In other words, we are to subdue the earth and every living thing on behalf of God.  This holds to be true for two reasons.

One, for mankind to be created in the image and likeness of God is the same as being created as God’s representative likeness (Stanley Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, pgs. 174-175).  Consequently, this means that we are to represent God in all cultural acts. 

Two, God’s command implies that mankind is not to fulfill these cultural acts for him or herself, but rather for God.  For the acts of culture are derived from God’s creation and command of man.  It is for this reason that all acts of culture are to be subjected to “God’s commands, God’s desires, God’s norms, [and] God’s values” (Frame, pg. 4). 

Back to the four cultural activities.

Third, cultural acts include work.  Since the idea of work preceded sin it is not to be considered a negative or sinful thing that needs to be avoided.  Work was and is a part of God’s good created order (also see Ephesians 4.28; 1 Thessalonians 4.10-12; 2 Thessalonians 4.6-12). 

Fourth, culture not only includes the act of filling, subduing, and working, but also keeping.  The act of keeping is the same as exercising great care over.  David Hegeman, from Plowing in Hope, says, “In the context of Gen. 2.15, the term carries with it the idea of taking care of or guarding something of value either from damage or from an outside intruder or enemy” (pg. 46).  As we fulfill cultural activities we are not to do so in a way that exploits people or resources. 

Culture and the Gospel

Even though the English word culture is not found in the Scriptures, it is evident that the idea of culture is rooted in the creation and command of mankind by God.  What we learned is that all cultural activities undertaken by mankind is to be done as God’s representative and subjected to His commands, desires, norms, and values. 

These cultural activities have not been done away with by the entrance and presence of sin.  These acts were repeated to Noah and his family in Genesis 9.1-7 and restored in the life and message of Jesus Christ. 

We observe this in the final words of Christ in Matthew 28.19-20:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.  And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age. 

This command encompasses all of life, for we are to make disciples of all the nations by not only baptizing them, but by teaching them to observe all that Christ has commanded us.  Commenting upon this passage John Frame said,

The Gospel creates new people, people radically committed to Christ in every area of their lives.  People like these will change the world.  They will fill and rule the earth to the glory of Jesus.  They will plant churches, establish godly families, and will also plant godly hospitals, schools, arts, and sciences (pg. 9).

Even though cultural activities have been tainted by the entrance and presence of sin, they are now being renewed through the redemptive work of Christ, for Christ is redeeming all things to Himself (Colossians 1.20) which will be culminated in His return.

Sometime in the next couple of weeks I plan on following-up this post with the implications of the Fall on culture as well as redemption.  Be sure to sign-up for the free subscription to RSS and/or e-mail.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.   

Consider sharing this post.

From John Frame in Christianity and Culture:

As they fill the world, they are to rule it. They are not to be terrified by the natural world, like Dorothy and her friends, who cried about the lions and tigers and bears. Nor are they to be fearful of electrical storms, or earthquakes, or desert heat. Rather, they are to march through the world as kings and queens, taking possession of everything. They are to harness the animals, the heat and cold, the electricity and seismic energy, to serve their own purposes. That means development. Adam and Eve are not to leave the world untouched, as some radical environmentalists would prefer. Rather, they are to use the resources of God’s creation, to bring out the potential of the heavens and the earth, to facilitate their rule under God. They are to turn the creation into a culture, into a home for human society.

Of course, use is one thing, exploitation something else. Adam’s family had to remember that they were made of dust. They were not God; they were finite, not infinite. To live, they needed to eat. So although God gave them the right to rule the earth, in one sense they were subordinate to the earth. They needed the earth for their food and shelter. That’s another difference between creation and culture. God creates the world, but does not depend on the world at all. The world depends entirely on him. But in human life, there is mutual dependence between ourselves and the world. The world depends on us to fill and rule it, but we depend on the world for our very existence.

So, just as God told Adam to “take care” of the Garden (Gen. 2:15), Adam’s family was to “take care” of the earth. God wanted them both to use and to preserve. To use, but not to use up. So God later told Israel to rest the land after six years of cultivation. Man is to rule the earth, but also to serve it. He is to be a servant-king. That is the basis of biblical environmentalism (pgs. 2-3).

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

The Culturally Savvy Christian: A Manifesto for Deepening Faith and Enriching Popular Culture in an Age of Christianity-Lite

The predominant energy within American Christianity is in what I call “pop Christianity” or “Christianity-Lite.”  This brand of faith tastes great but is less filling, and wherever it prevails, it is a source of impoverishment of faith and culture.  Christianity, when it takes on these characteristics, is an imposter.  People are seeking the way home to God, but pop Christianity cannot provide it.  Yet for many today, Christianity-Lite is all they know, and the consequences are serious for both the religious and the irreligious.

Christianity-Lite’s cultural accommodation poses sever consequences for today’s spiritual seeker.  When seekers become disenchanted with a diversionary, mindless, celebrity-driven, and well-marketed but unsatisfying popular culture, if they turn to contemporary Christianity, they will often find those same qualities.  We are witnessing the marketing of a Christianity-Lite that produces conversions instead of disciples

…In place of Jesus’ call to self-denial and promise of persecution and sacrifice, today’s consumer-oriented, commoditized Christianity offers heaven in the future and fulfillment of the American dream now (pg. 40).

Christians are called to be light of the world, not the lite of the world (pg. 41).

Instead of being or becoming passive consumers of culture (particularly in the areas of entertainment, art, music, photography, and film) as if it possesses a neutral, non-influencing capacity.  Let us instead be Christians who are discerning consumers of culture, filtering all things through the Scriptures (Romans 12.2; 2 Timothy 3.16) and submitting every thought, word, action, and image to the pre-em-i-nence of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 10.5)

Read some enlightening thoughts from Henry Van Til on the Concept of Culture.

The Calvinistic Concept of Culture:

Culture, then, is any and all human effort and labor expended upon the cosmos, to unearth its treasures and its riches and bring them into the service of man for the enrichment of human existence unto the glory of God (pgs. 29-30).

Since man is a moral being, his culture cannot be a-moral.  Because man is a religious being, his culture too, must be religiously orietned.  There is no pure culture in the sense of being neutral religiously, or without positive or negative value ethically.

Culture, however, does not include religion (pg. 27)…Cultures are irreducibly value-oriented (pg. 35).

The reason religion cannot be subsumed under culture is the fact that whereas man as a religious being transcends all his activities under the sun, culture is but one aspect of the sum total of these activities and their results in forming history.

The meaning of life does not lie in culture as such, but culture derives its meaning from man’s faith in God; it is never an end in itself but always a means of expressing one’s religious faith (pg. 28).

Now it ought to be clear that the biblical answer is the only one that explains this urge and this sense of calling in modern man.  For culture is the fulfillment of purposive moulding of nature in execution of the creative will of God (pg. 34).

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Pre-em-i-nence by E-mail or RSS.

From the Introduction to the Reformed Tradition:

The Reformed tradition, according to the typology of H. Richard Niebuhr, belongs among the converters of culture.  Neither rejecting culture nor identifying with culture, it has sought to transform culture.  This relationship to culture is based upon the conviction that culture, as art of the creation of God, is good and therefore is convertible.  It is also based upon the conviction that culture is fallen or disordered and therefore needs transformation.  History provides abundant evidence that the Reformed community has been energetic in the pursuit of the transformation of culture, particularly in the ethical and political area (pg. 198)

From the beginning the Reformation tradition rejected paintings and sculpture as means of Christian education and as aids to worship.  As humanists the reformers had confidence in the power of words, and as observers of history they saw or believed they saw the theological illiteracy and corruption that reliance on images had produced.  Images and paintings cannot communicate faith (pg. 201).