Church opposition helps shoot down nano-brewery on adjacent land

[Revvy]

More.

Illegitimate Reasons

As noted in earlier, biblical support for abstinence came after the public demand for abstinence. Once Christians decided to abstain, they looked to the Bible to support their views. This, of course, is a poor method of biblical exegesis, and usually leads to poor interpretation. Unfortunately, as Christians sought abstinence in the Bible, they often took verses out of context, or otherwise misled to support their views.

First, when one examines the text, he or she will notice that the Bible mentions alcohol quite often. In fact, the Bible mentions alcohol 240 times (Hailey, 1992). Many of those references are favorable toward wine. Verses such as Neh 2:1; Est 5:6; Job 1:13; Mt 9:17; 21:33; and 1 Tim 5:23 are all casual references to wine, showing it as normal part of Hebrew life. Further, Dt 14:26; Ps 4:7; 104:15; Hos 2:8; Pro 3:10; SS 1:2; 4:10; 7:9; and Is 25:6 are all positive aspects of wine. Wine is a symbol of joy (Ps 104:15), God's blessings (Pro 9:2,5), and a worship offering to God (Ex 29:40). Hailey goes on to note that considering Jesus drank, (Lk 7:33,34; Mt 26:26-29) and that he created wine (Jn 2:1-11), "we can derive no other conclusion except that our Lord assigned positive qualities to wine" (Hailey, 1992).

However, some Baptists have tried to claim that the Bible requires abstinence. Some even contest whether Jesus created alcohol at Cana. Aubrey Hearn writes, "the view that Jesus supernaturally provided a large amount of intoxicating wine for the wedding guests has against it the general character and spirit of Jesus..." (Hearn, 1943). However, Hearn fails to consider verse ten. "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now." The master could only be speaking about alcohol. If the wine were non-alcoholic, it would not matter how much the people had to drink. They would still be able to detect the cheaper wine. However, if the wine were alcoholic, the early wine would dull their senses, so that later, they would not notice the cheaper wine.

One Baptist writer, Glenn Knight, admits that Jesus created alcohol, but claims, "the object of the miracle was to show his power as the divine Son of God (verse 12) [sic, verse 11]" (Knight, 1955). Unfortunately, Knight, too, does not consider the whole story. Verse eleven states, "this, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed.... He thus revealed his glory." While it is true that this miracle showed his glory, that was not the purpose. Verses three and four state, "when the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, ‘They have no more wine.' ‘Dear woman, why do you involve me?' Jesus replied. ‘My time has not come'." Jesus' purpose in performing this miracle was to fulfill his mother's demand. Jesus had no desire to show his divine nature. He clearly stated that the time had not yet come to reveal himself.

Knight goes on to twist the Bible. He writes, "the parable of the faithful and unfaithful servants (Luke 12:25-49) illustrates exactly how drink destroys mental and moral alertness" (Knight, 1955). Knight seems to reverse the order of events here. In this parable, the moral failure comes first. Then, the unfaithful servant commits various sins, including drunkenness. The drunkenness was a result of the servant's moral failure, not the failure as a result of drunkenness.

Knight makes this same mistake in writing, "as early as the days of Moses, a provision was made for total abstainers to be set apart unto the Lord (Numbers 6:1-22)" (Knight, 1955). However, the Nazarite vow, cited here, states that those set apart, must abstain, not that abstainers were set apart. One could abstain and not be set apart. Knight simply does not pay attention to the text.

Knight further misrepresents scripture by claiming, "almost all the prophets.... Isaiah (5:11,12,13), Jeremiah, Hoseah, and Amos.... called for abstinence..." (Knight, 1955). The truth is that the prophets warned about alcohol, but did not call for abstinence. Isaiah wrote in 25:6, "on this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine – the best meats and the finest wines." Amos declared God would rescue Israel and that, "new wine will drip from the mountains and flow from the hills.... They will plant vineyards and drink their wine..."(Amos 9:13-14 NIV). Jeremiah and Hosea wrote that a lack of wine was a sign of judgement from God (Jer 48:33; Hos 2:9), not a blessing. Hosea even wrote that having wine is a blessing from God (Hos 2:8). Knight is mistaken when he claims that the prophets called for abstinence.

As if these failures are not enough, Knight continues:
Wine is not specifically mentioned in the New Testament as a drink in connection with the Lord's Supper. The drink is referred to as ‘the fruit of the vine.' By stretching our imagination we may interpret this drink as wine in its fermented form. If the drink of the Lord's Supper was the same as the Passover drink, it cannot be argued that fermented wine was used by our Lord as an element in the Lord's Supper. In fact, according to Exodus 12:15 nothing fermented was to be eaten from the time the Passover meal was eaten to the end of the Passover week.... So, we conclude that the Lord's supper does not require nor permit the use of fermented wine for the ordinance nor for any other occasion. (Knight, 1995)

First, assuming that it was true that this drink was not fermented, there is no plausible reason why this would not "permit the use of fermented wine...for any other occasion." There simply would be no relationship between the Passover drink and other occasions. However, Knight's entire statement is utterly wrong.

Rabbi Abraham Bloch writes that there is a rabbinical teaching, dating back to the first century before Christ, which requires that Jews have four glasses of fermented wine as part of the Seder for Passover (Bloch, 1978). Traditionally, "Kosher for Passover" wine is used for the Seder. Only in recent decades have some Jews begun using "Kosher for Passover" grape juice, because they do not want to feel "tipsy" during the Passover (Strassfeld, 1985).

In fact, the verse that Knight cites, Ex 12:15, makes no mention of fermentation. The verse prohibits bread with yeast, known as ‘hametz' (Holidays on the Net). Secondly, the prohibition against ‘hametz' does not pertain to grain alcohols, such as whiskey (Jacobs, 1987).

Besides all this, Knight is wrong when he claims that "wine" is never mentioned "in connection with the Lord's Supper." Has Knight never read 1 Cor 11:20-22, where Paul specifically mentions that some were getting drunk at the Lord's Supper?

Paige Patterson, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, claims that the Nazarite vow is proof that abstinence is God's ideal. He states that the vow was the holiest vow an Israelite could take. Since the vow required abstinence, Patterson believes that abstinence must be the holiest state (Patterson, 1999). Patterson's view is poorly reasoned, however.

Daniel Wallace writes, "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" (Wallace). After all, the Nazarite also vowed to abstain from raisins (Num 6:3). In addition, if someone believes that Christians should live up to the Nazarite vow, then Christians should also abstain from cutting their hair (Num 6:5) (Hailey, 1992). Since Patterson does cut his hair, it may be assumed that he does not believe that long hair is holier than short.

Patterson also states the proverb, "wine is a mocker; strong drink a brawler, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise" prohibits alcohol (Pro 20:1). He believes that this proverb says all alcohol is unwise. He writes, "I read nothing of ‘drunkenness' in the passage" (Patterson, 1999). Does this mean that Patterson believes Jesus was unwise, because Jesus drank? Certainly, most Christians would not accept such an interpretation. The logical interpretation is to realize that the term "led astray" implies "drunkenness."

This tendency to pick parts of the Bible and ignore others is inescapable when trying to fit the Bible with preconceived ideas. Another Baptist author, John Gillespie, cites Rom 14:21, "It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall." Gillespie claims that this verse demands that we abstain. His reasoning is that some will be offended or turned away from the gospel if they see Christians engaging in the sensual act of drinking. Consequently, Christians must abstain to prevent this (Gillespie, 1955). However, Gillespie makes no mention of a need for Christians to become vegetarians to avoid offending. Many people are offended by meat eating. Some, such as members of the organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals directly call on Christians to quit eating meat (PETA, nd). However, the SBC has never called on Christians to abstain from meat. Perhaps the SBC would take notice if there were a larger vegetarian movement, more like the Temperance movement.

 

[Revvy]

The conclusion is interesting.

The Bible, though warning about alcohol, also praises alcohol. It is a gift from God, given to man for our enjoyment. God blessed men with a bountiful harvest of grapes. Those whose vineyards were bare, were being judged. Alcohol was as an offering to God in the Old Testament, and a symbol of salvation in the New Testament. Biblical writers recorded that wine brought joy, and was used in celebrations.

This was true in America, until the social Temperance movement gained power. During the nineteenth century, Americans were convinced that alcohol was a scourge to the earth. Surely, God was opposed to this evil, people insisted. Eventually, people sought to prove their view, using the Bible.

Some people found good reason to abstain. The Bible was clear that alcohol could be dangerous. Some biblical characters chose to abstain, or even received commands, by God, to abstain. Finally, peoples' consciences led them to believe that abstinence was best. Unfortunately, some others were not content with these reasons, alone. These Christians took their exegesis farther. Many insisted that the Bible demanded abstinence, not merely allowed it. Some teetotalers made wild and unsubstantiated claims, which their followers gladly accepted.

Within time, prohibition took over the country. Many churches and denominations led the way in prohibition. Churches passed resolutions, and signed covenants requiring abstinence. Churches excommunicated, as sinners, those who dared to disagree. So ingrained was the idea that alcohol was sinful, that it survived long after the prohibition laws were repealed.

In the Southern Baptist Convention, the frenzy over prohibition became so powerful that it swept aside the doctrine of liberty. Churches no longer permitted men to interpret the Bible for themselves. While Baptist churches still claimed individual freedom, in practice, members either accepted church teachings, disobeyed in secret, or left their church.

This situation pervaded for almost a century, with little question. However, some began to dispute the church's right to demand abstinence. They pointed out the inherent discrepancy between liberty and forced conformity. Thus, a controversy developed in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Baptists have always been set apart for their strong belief in the competency of the soul. Baptists are free to seek God's direction for their individual lives. Each believer, led by the Holy Spirit, is capable and released to seek God's will. However, for the past century, the Southern Baptist Convention has been violating this basic belief.

The demand for abstinence is not only an intrusion into soul competency, it is biblically wrong. The Bible gives Christians the responsibility to choose whether to drink, or not. There is no legitimate claim that the Bible demands abstinence. The Bible gives the choice. It is time that the Southern Baptist Convention, and its churches, gave that choice back to members.

 

[unionrdr]

True,beer got lumped in with being supportive of the nazis. Not all germans are/were nazis,least of all the big brewery owners over here. They were German Americans at this point. I think it was just a ploy by the temperance movement to get their way at last. They found out finally that prohibition hurt more than it helped. Seemed more like emotional rather than clear reasoning at that point. Just like this situation.

 

[TyTanium]

I don't really want to hijack this thread to discuss the theology of beer, but for the early Christians (and still today), drunkenness was the sin, not the consumption of alcohol.

Here's a thought from Martin Luther -
“Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused. Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women?”

And Calvin added:
"The use of gifts of God cannot be wrong, if they are directed to the same purpose for which the Creator himself has created and destined them. If we study…why he has created the various kinds of food, we shall find that it was his intention not only to provide for our needs, but likewise for our pleasure and for our delight…For, if this were not true, the Psalmist would not enumerate among the divine blessings “the wine that makes glad the heart of man…”

And from Mansfield's book:
“Beer, well respected and rightly consumed, is a gift of God. It is one of his mysteries, which it was his delight to conceal and the glory of kings to search out. And men enjoy it to mark their days and celebrate their moments and stand with their brothers in the face of what life brings."

 

[TyTanium]

Here's another great piece from Mansfield's book:

“A brewer once told me that he did not think of himself as brewing beer, but rather as creating the conditions in which brewing takes place.”

We wet the barley and stand back. It germinates.
We dry it, put it in the oven and stand back. It becomes malted barley.
We add hot water and stand back. Starches become sugars
We boil, add the hops and stand back. Oil and water mix
We add yeast and stand back. Yeast praise their creator by coming out of dormancy to reproduce and gorge themselves on sugar – creating carbon dioxide, alcohol and a host of miraculous flavors found nowhere else in nature.

“He told me he felt closer to God brewing beer than he did in the church, because when he is brewing he feels like he is participating in the secret ways of the creator."

 

[unionrdr]

Well said,ty. It was meant to be enjoyed,but not abused.

 

[ACbrewer]

We had a bit of a dicussion on this topic during lent. I put some information in that thread.



(I kinda like that first paragrah....paid in hooch, eh? )

From ALCOHOLIC PROHIBITION IN SOUTHERN BAPTIST CHURCHES AND ITS IMPLICATION ON THE PRIESTHOOD OF BELIEVERS

That's why the Whiskey Rebellion of 1790's occured. The new US gov't needed money and taxed distilled Alcohol. But it was the currency used in Western PA where specie was hard to come by. So the locals got upset that they were being taxed on the whiskey and revolted.(and basically lost the arguement, although only a few people died and all of them were tax collectors, not farmers in rebellion)

 

[Homercidal]

Some people claim, with good reason, that much of what was claimed to be wine in the bible was in fact originally described as "strong drink", most likely an early form of beer. The reference was modified by the people rewriting the bible to wine because wine was considered a noble drink by the Romans, the people rewriting it.

The theory goes that in Rome, conditions are excellent for growing grapes, and therefore not only would there be wine aplenty, but it was most likely of very good quality.

However, in the area where much of the writings in the bible take place, grapes were not as plentiful since the conditions for good growth are much rarer. However, growing grain was much easier, and in fact bread and beer were very likely to be plentiful.

The case for this argument grows stronger when you consider that there is practically ZERO reference to alcohol except for wine! When history shows us that in fact fermented grain was very common. But in Rome, where they were rewriting, beer had a social stigma. It was considered a substandard drink. This continues in many places today, BTW. So you would EXPECT at least a few references to beer, or what would have been the name of it then. It's not there.

There are several places in the bible which encourage drinking and being happy. Although drunkeness is admonished.

It really was the temperance movement that created the problem IMO. If you enjoy a bit of history, it's an interesting read.

 

[Revvy]

Some people claim, with good reason, that much of what was claimed to be wine in the bible was in fact originally described as "strong drink", most likely an early form of beer. The reference was modified by the people rewriting the bible to wine because wine was considered a noble drink by the Romans, the people rewriting it.

The case for this argument grows stronger when you consider that there is practically ZERO reference to alcohol except for wine! When history shows us that in fact fermented grain was very common. But in Rome, where they were rewriting, beer had a social stigma. It was considered a substandard drink. This continues in many places today, BTW. So you would EXPECT at least a few references to beer, or what would have been the name of it then. It's not there.

I can totally buy this notion that the word "wine" was more than likely a "generic" word for fermented strong drink no-matter what the ingredient. Think about Barleywines and now Wheatwines, they don't fit the modern "definition" of what we think a wine is, but we still hang the wine moniker on them....

This is one of the best discussions on here in a long time, IMHO. Some cool material to add to my files. I'm about to order the Guinness Book.

 

[coastwx]

My dad's side of the family is southern baptist,& they made wine,& drank. My grandma made a great cherry wine as well. She just didn't believe in drinking beer. So it could be that this church is pushing the no alcohol belief for personal reasons.

Just 15 miles south of Raleigh, in Johnston Co., beer was not sold until around 2002. However, the grocery stores could sell wine and there was a ABC Liquor store just off our I-40 exit. Just amazing there are so many religious-based laws in place in parts of the country. At least the State did start allowing high ABV brews 5 years ago, so things are changing.

 

[coastwx]

Some people claim, with good reason, that much of what was claimed to be wine in the bible was in fact originally described as "strong drink", most likely an early form of beer. The reference was modified by the people rewriting the bible to wine because wine was considered a noble drink by the Romans, the people rewriting it.

The theory goes that in Rome, conditions are excellent for growing grapes, and therefore not only would there be wine aplenty, but it was most likely of very good quality.

However, in the area where much of the writings in the bible take place, grapes were not as plentiful since the conditions for good growth are much rarer. However, growing grain was much easier, and in fact bread and beer were very likely to be plentiful.

The case for this argument grows stronger when you consider that there is practically ZERO reference to alcohol except for wine! When history shows us that in fact fermented grain was very common. But in Rome, where they were rewriting, beer had a social stigma. It was considered a substandard drink. This continues in many places today, BTW. So you would EXPECT at least a few references to beer, or what would have been the name of it then. It's not there.

There are several places in the bible which encourage drinking and being happy. Although drunkeness is admonished.

It really was the temperance movement that created the problem IMO. If you enjoy a bit of history, it's an interesting read.

I was raise Mormon and the Word of Wisdom that guides LDS members against drinking any alcohol actually was originally not interpreted that way. In fact, Mormons in Salt Lake did drink beer. It was the head of the Church in later years that had a "vision" and changed the recommendation against drinking any alcohol. I tell my Mom I have adopted the original intent of the Word of Wisdom

Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.

 

[Whippy]

I'm sure the church was just scared the brewery would cut into their profits.

 

[BrewMU]

What a heartwarming scene! How could anyone see that guy's brew-space and not be moved? That's one neat, cozy little brewery - has this church taken a hard stand against sewing circles and quilting bees as well?
Say what you will about the Pope - if this were a Catholic Church, he'd not only still be open, he'd have more business than he'd know what to do with!

 

[Teromous]

Because there are so many breweries in VA, that we need to stomp out every person wanting to do something productive...

 

[Mikespunchlist]

Idiotic, and stupid. I guess Baptists aren't taught Christian History and don't realize that many Christian Religuous Sects, brew beer and make wine....

Oh and there's also that whole Jesus turning water into wine thing.

Reminds me of an old joke.

There are three truths in life:
Jewish people do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.
Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader
of the Christian faith.
Baptists do not recognize each other in the liquor store.

All I know is that as a Catholic if I want Baptist company in my boat while fishing, I have to take two of them to protect my beer. Only one would be trouble.

 

[Revvy]

Just to show that not all churches/ministers have sticks up their asses, a lot of them are like me.

Pastor Opens Tattoo Parlor Inside Michigan Church
A Michigan pastor has opened a tattoo parlor inside his church.

Rev. Steve Bentley says he's doing everything he can to reach out to people who have never felt comfortable at a traditional house of worship.

Bentley's church, The Bridge, occupies 3,000 square feet inside a Flint Township shopping center. Serenity Tattoo is located not far from his office — as well as a galvanized watering trough that he uses for baptisms.

Two tattoo artists work at the county-licensed shop that is open every day except Sunday.

Bentley rejects criticism that a church is the wrong place for a tattoo parlor, calling it a "morally neutral" practice akin to having your ears pierced.

He has two tattoos.

 

[BobBailey]

Idiotic, and stupid. I guess Baptists aren't taught Christian History and don't realize that many Christian Religuous Sects, brew beer and make wine....

Oh and there's also that whole Jesus turning water into wine thing.

Reminds me of an old joke.

There are three truths in life:
Jewish people do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.
Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader
of the Christian faith.
Baptists do not recognize each other in the liquor store.

Without the intent of offending anyone, I have another one along the same line.

Q: Why do you always take 2 Baptists fishing with you?

A: Because if you only take one, he'll drink all of your beer.

Having moved to Nevada 10 years ago, I have discovered this works well as a Mormon joke too!

Bob

 

[biestie]

Me thinks the anger is misdirected. After all, it was the board of zoning appeals that denied his application, not the church. The church merely persuaded them to do what they wanted. Now is the church misguided in their beliefs? Perhaps, but I think that's a separate argument.

IMHO, the real issue is that the guy wants to do something on his land that's not harming anyone else. I object to the very existence of a "board of zoning appeals", but hey, I'm one of those kooky libertarians. I probably shouldn't go any further than that since that's a political argument, not a religious one.