Alcohol and Health

From the outset, this post is mostly for me. I want to flesh out some thoughts regarding a topic that seems to be increasingly popular, though very unpopular to debate, among Christians - Alcohol. 

The subject has certainly been divisive for generations, in America at least. Many famous preachers thundered against drinking, perhaps no one more famous than Billy Sunday, but he wasn't the only teetotaler of influence in that era as politicians influenced by the movement passed the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act in 1919 and 1920 respectively. Thus it would seem that the anti-alcohol stance was a singly American issue. I'll get to that more in other articles.

Suffice to say for now, many of the Temperance movement's concerns centered upon alcohol's ills - physical, moral, and political, and for now I want to discuss one of those issues, the physical. Namely, can alcohol be considered healthy? 

Many pro-alcohol arguments focus on potential benefits associated with certain drinks, most notably red wine. But are there other benefits? If so, what might they be? 

I can't promise the reader that this will be a thorough, comprehensive scientific study, but I do plan to reference as much "science" as possible. Full disclosure, however, I'm not a scientist, and I reserve the right to question, as do you too. Overall, I want to be able to lay out as much information as coherently and concisely possible to determine whether or not the overall "scientific" consensus supports or denies the claims that alcohol can be or is healthy. (Yes, I realize that this is a very general statement, it has to be for now, because the claim that alcohol is healthy is a general claim. Regardless, I will endeavor to be as objective as possible). 

First - The Pro-Healthy-Alcohol Claims: (Perhaps I've missed a few, but these are the most common claims. It should also be noted that these claims do not extend to all alcoholic beverages).

1. Potentially Lower Cardiovascular Disease

2. Potentially Increase Libido

3. Potentially Prevent the Common Cold

4. Potentially Stave off Dementia

5. Potentially Lower Chances of Type 2 Diabetes

6. Potentially Reduce Risk of Gallstones

7. Potentially Increase Cognitive Abilities

8. Potentially Aid Weight Loss

9. Blood Thinner

Second - The Anti-Healthy-Alcohol Claims:

1. Negative Affects upon Muscle

     a. Destroys Post-Workout Muscle Repair

     b. Blocks Growth Hormone Essential for Protein Synthesis

   c. Disrupts Cellular Water Balance, thus Harming Cellular Ability to Produce ATP (Adenosine Triphosphate) a major energy source.

4. Dehydration

5. Liver Disease

     a. Cirrhosis

     b. Potomania

6. Memory Loss

7. Depression

8. Potentially Increases Insulin Resistance

9. Increased Risk of Mouth, Throat, Colon, Liver Cancer (Update: More on the Cancer Risk)

10. Birth Defects

11. Addiction

12. Intoxication

13. Infertility in Women

14. Impotence in Men

15. Cardiovascular Disease

16. Decreased Sexual Function (The fact that even Buzzfeed wrote an, much less scholarly, article , that also extends to women,on this is telling).
17. Folate Blocker

The first thing that might be glaringly apparent is that in the first list I used the word "Potentially" quite a lot. In fact, that was such a common word in all of the studies that I researched that I had to borrow the word myself. In other words, it was very hard for me to find concrete statements, that did not have additional warnings, about most of the claims on my list. In fact, one statement from the Mayo Clinic really stood out to me - 

"Moderate alcohol use may be of most benefit if you have existing risk factors for heart disease. However, you can take other steps to improve your heart health besides drinking — eating a healthy diet and exercising, for example, which have more robust research behind them." (Italics are mine for emphasis)

I point out the Mayo Clinic statement, because it illustrates the plethora of research on this topic. For instance, it seemed to me that for every pro-Alcohol claim I could find, there were as many or more anti-Alcohol claims to refute the pro-position.  Further, adding to my research frustrations was the use of  the terms "may, might, perhaps, potentially, could." These are not concretely objective, factual terms. Then one thing dawned on me as I delved into the studies. Certain drinks do have healthy benefits, but they all have one common denominator that makes them all dangerous - ethanol. 

Not many talk about drinking ethanol. I certainly didn't, and never even considered the term. But as both pro and anti groups will point out, the substance that makes all alcoholic drinks in fact alcoholic is known as ethanol. I had to know more, because until about three weeks ago, I had never heard this correlation before.

Ethanol is the substance produced by fermented sugars or yeasts. It is also the same substance manufactured from corn production that fuels your car. 

It is, as the Wikipedia article linked above states, volatile and flammable. 

My wife and I enjoy IndyCar, and I can vividly remember not seeing a crew member burning on pit lane. He had apparently been accidentally set ablaze as a spark lit his ethanol soaked uniform. The rest of the team quickly dumped multiple barrels of water on the burning man, because they couldn't be too certain about whether or not their teammate was in fact safe from the clear-burning substance. Volatile and flammable indeed. Powerful stuff too in that it makes those cars top out at 230 mph.

There may be some nuance between the stuff in beer and the stuff at the pump, but nothing I've researched cared enough to really point it out. As for alcohol in other senses of the term, such as isopropyl or methanol, they're purely toxic. I'm sure Kitty Dukakis wished she'd thought of that before famously downing rubbing alcohol in 1989.

As it is, ethanol is the substance that ties all of the studies together. It's what the anti-alcohol arguments focus upon, and it is what the pro-alcohol arguments mistakenly sidestep as they focus on the benefits.

The bottom line in what I've discovered is that both the pro and anti arguments can both be right at the same time often using the even the same studies. For instance, yes, Red Wine, the alcoholic drink most sighted as being beneficial does in fact contain healthy substances, especially Resveratrol a somewhat potent, slightly estrogenic antioxidant.

But here's the rub in these cases, the Resveratrol would still be present in raw grapes or grape juice without the added ethanol content. That is, all of the beneficial substances found in these alcoholic drinks are present in spite of, not because of alcohol's introduction. It's akin to saying I like eating 8 day old rotting steak, and claiming it is healthy, because it is high in iron. Of course it is high in iron, that compound hasn't disappeared just because the steak is rotting. But in addition to that iron, you might also be eating, even a moderate amount, something harmful.

The best I can say in the pro-argument's favor is that the studies are at best inconclusive, because different growing conditions cause variations across the plant world (ie. the grapes grown in France may have more Resveratrol  than the grapes grown in Virginia where I live, therefore there are too many variables to make absolute statements regarding potential benefits in certain alcoholic drinks). (I should also point out that there are potentially negative side affects of Resveratrol too, so the jury is still, though increasingly not, out on a potentially big health claim. Even if it is beneficial there are other food sources that do not have the same warning labels attached to them that alcohol has). 

Whenever comments such as these are mentioned an almost conditioned response, "All things in moderation" is given. From a non-biblical response, because I haven't even begun to add the Bible into this yet, I'm at a loss as to what to say any further than asking something like, "Would you drink the ethanol by itself? or Would you drink the same drink minus the ethanol?" The point being that the desire to drink the ethanol appears to be the underlying focus, not the often stated "health benefits" be they what they may.

So, if I'm indeed correct in my assertion, then perhaps something else in Wikipedia's Alcohol definition concerns me. Defining Alcohol as a "Psychoactive Substance or Drug" causes me to ponder just why there is such a desire to drink alcohol. Not wine, beer, whiskey, etc. Alcohol. Because I'm very curious to know if people would drink the same drinks minus the alcohol. Maybe the answer is yes, as The Economist wrote in 2013 (don't get too excited, read the article to see how this trend is working, and who it affects). 

Bottom line for me and what I can see through my limited, and perhaps unscientific study of the topic, Alcoholic drinks can and do contain some health(y) benefits, but they are in most, if not all, cases, negated by more serious issues stemming from the alcohol (ethanol) itself, thus making them unhealthy in the long run.

To put an exclamation point on my bottom line, Harvard's School of Public Health came to the same conclusion and even uses some of the same types of language (ie. possible, may, potentially) that I have used in this article. That doesn't mean I'm a genius, or that my, albeit brief and unscientific, study is the end all. What it does mean, however, is that the idea that drinking alcohol is healthy is not a claim that even secular institutions such as Harvard or those cited throughout this article are willing to risk their careers making. Simply put, the science does not appear to support the claim. What the science, however, does often support is that alcohol has certain negative health consequences, even in moderation.

Response to a Cultural Missionary

Hi Ben, I wanted to respond a bit more formally to your brief remarks on Facebook RE: Cultural Missionary. I've taken a look at your ministry, which is the only picture I have of what you're doing. From that glimpse comes a few questions that I'd like to know more about.

(Starting from the beginning of the main video)

1. Why do you mention that you're 501c3? Granted, this has nothing to do with the "Cultural Missionary" question at all, but it did strike me that you felt the need to mention your tax status to lead off. That also made me wonder how the IRS liked your affiliation with Dr. Ben Carson. As I understand it, open support is not allowed for 501c3 organizations, but as with the law, semantics I'm sure allows you a loophole. Again, beside the point, yet I do want to know what you have to say in response to this article about 501c3 ministries.

2. Though I understand that you're after "seeing and doing" the big things that God could have for someone's life, saying that you're ministry is not about asking or thinking seems to open yourself up for caricature attacks. Especially since culture portrays Christians as non-intellectual.

Aside from that concern, I have to know, what are you doing any different than any other mainstream, world mimicking, rock-concert-at-church type of modern ministry? You say that you're doing things differently, maybe even dynamically, but what does that mean? Are you so different that you're with one bold sweep clearing the table of all New Testament examples in which people were reached one by one through one to one encounters? Essentially, are you saying something like, "That is the old method, we're doing the new method that everyone else is doing, we've got a band, we've got media, we've got this and that conference."

3. You mention that we have to meet ever changing culture with the never changing gospel. What has changed about culture? Ever? It seems to me that ministries such as Ask or Think, and others like it, have constantly tried to change the gospel to make it more palatable to a sin-loving public. What do you think you're doing better with your travelling 150,00 plus miles to reach more than 26,000 people than a group of 10 who reach more than 80,000/year while travelling the distance from Rockford to Chicago, Illinois once a week for 50 weeks?

I'm not against using modern tools, I use them. But those tools can never replace actively seeking out one to one witnessing encounters. That is and will always be the Bible's example for reaching the lost. That being the case, all one needs to know in order to reach a culture is the language. You might say I'm simplistic. Sure, that's the point, it's simple. Everyone can do it.

4. This brings me to this next point. The only way to know a culture is to talk with individuals one to one. I don't subscribe to the collectivist notion that treats people groups as a whole. Every person comprising culture is an individual, and God treats them as such when calling men to repentance. He will also judge each person for his own sin, individually. Culture doesn't concern Him. What the person does in response to the repent from sin/turn to Christ message concerns Him.

On that final note about sin. Why don't you mention sin in any of your videos? Are you afraid of something there? If I were happily walking off of a cliff, you'd warn me, wouldn't you? That'd be true love. Warning one about sin is exponentially more important, wouldn't you agree?

5. I believe you have great intentions for all of your programs. But everyone has great intentions (ultimately) for what they do/believe in. For instance, all world leaders, if pressed, would certainly tell you that what they're doing will be for the good of everyone. Good intentions, however, are not synonymous with good practice, and those leaders have more often than not created disasters through their short-sighted good intentions.

Perhaps you don't realize it, but your entire ministry model exists, because the Modern American Church is a broken model. Churches were ordained by God to handle all of the issues (and more) that you're currently addressing. So, instead of fixing the problems at the God ordained institution level, para-church ministries, with good intentions, begin popping up. They can't focus on the individual, and for that the cultural war is lost one individual at a time, because true, deep, Bible-style fellowship and discipleship can never be accomplished, thus the far-sighted issues become increasingly serious over time.

If elder men trained younger men, and elder women trained younger women like they're commanded to do in Titus 2, then you'd see no need whatsoever for your para-church organization. But the pulpit centered model that hinges upon, "show up, shut up, pay up" leaves the culture desperate for substantive questions and meaningful answers. Bottom line, the harder these modern organizations try, the worse the culture becomes. But that's not quite true is it?Culture/mankind has always been against God. Nothing has changed there. What has changed is that the church and organizations such as yours keep trying to skirt the real issue, namely, dealing with sin up front, while and focusing instead on sin's symptoms. For that alone, you're wrong. No matter how good your intentions are.

Finally, I see that you're diligently networking with a number of people, such as Pensacola's Mayor, Ashton Hayward, and Presidential hopeful, Ben Carson. I don't know anything about Ashton Hayward. I hope he is repentant from sin to trusting in Christ Christian. Ben Carson on the other hand is assuredly not, as his Seventh Day Adventism (a doctrine of devils) bears record. Granted, you don't have Dr. Carson on your website, but I felt the need to address this as it is part of our discussion.

Professing Christians in today's America are all too ready to support this or that candidate, while claiming their choice as a wonderful Christian. This was often done concerning Dr. Carson, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio. I see this as a woefully horrific illustration concerning the state of the culture. Gone are the days that pastors can comprehend doctrinal error, or are willing to point it out (might have something to do with that 501c3 issue above). Gone are the days in which people understood that the current prince of this world is Satan, that Christians fight against principalities and spiritual wickedness in high places. Today these same Christians are wanting to, "Take back America for Christ." Let's be clear here, if a nation was founded upon rebellion, Christ was not for it, or those people. God didn't look sideways and say it's OK, it's America, they can be rebellious, it's for a good cause. I'm all for liberty, don't misunderstand, but free or not, I will still serve Christ the way He commanded. The way described in the New Testament regardless of the type of government.

The fact that you became "Spiritual Adviser" to Seventh Day Adventisst Ben Carson fits with this narrative. You are not different. You are part of the cultural stream. If you truly want to be different then forsake the organizations. Save yourself some time. Reach more by focusing on your neighbors who are right next door, needing to be compelled to repent and believe in Christ. Quit focusing on the forest, and see the trees. Then you will have been counter-cultural like Christ and His followers were.

Stop Wasting Time!

Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. - Ephesians 5:16

This verse is a burdensome comfort to me. It's a burden in that it reminds me how precious time is, especially when this passage is taken into context with vss. 15 and 17. It's a burden even more so, because it brings into sharp focus a more serious issue. What do we do with our time?

I'm an arrogantly certain user of time. My professional work speaks of this. I don't mean to say this in a proud way, but if I didn't have a solid grasp of time, and how to use it, I wouldn't have the job that I presently have. I have to meet a complex web of deadlines in order to harvest, clean, schedule, load, truck, and ship soybeans from Virginia to multiple worldwide customers. If any one of those deadlines is not met on time, then the entire equation falls apart, and it's my neck that is choked. 

I say all of this to say that I'm constantly aware of time. It is a large part of who I am. It has been for a very long time in all of my professional work from teaching to farming. Full disclosure, however, I'm terrible with time, and that depresses me. 

I'm 35, and relatively successful at the things I've done with my time by most of the world's standards. I've earned awards, raises, better jobs, bought a house.... I can't help wondering, however, if I could have done more. 

Film-maker and entrepreneur Casey Neistat comes to mind. Because of poor choices in his youth, Casey was at the bottom before his adult life even began. He had to grow up fast, which means that he didn't have time to waste. He focused his attention and used time well (or at least it appears that way). He simply does, and does more. He does it all because he has people relying upon him. First, it was his son Owen, and then it became his wife and newborn daughter that sparked Neistat's insatiable work drive. To provide for them in the way that he feels they need to be provided for, he does not waste time. (Check out what he has to say about time management and productivity).

Because of that drive, and obsessive desire to use time wisely, Casey is quite successful in what he does. Using him as the world's standard, how do we as Christians compare? Here is where I reveal my time wasting. If I spend 20 minutes checking Facebook, 30 minutes reading various articles I found on Facebook, another hour or two checking facts from those articles, or scrolling through some other social media site every day, let alone watching sports, listening to people talk about politics, or program binge watching, hours wasted start turning into days wasted. Over time you get the picture.

Sure, many would say that a lot of that spent time might have been tied up learning good things. Let's be honest. No one cares that Sevilla FC won the Europa League in 2014 and 2015. It may have been fun for the moment, but then it's over, and even the players move on, looking to fulfill that winning buzz again in the next game or tournament.

I'm not attacking sports. I'm not even attacking entertainment (politics qualifies, see Neil Postman's work - Amusing Ourselves to Death). God does want us to enjoy the fruits of our labor. What I am attacking, and revealing about myself in the process, is the amount of time spent on such trivial matters. Believe me, in the long run, no one cares about what color Starbucks coffee cups will be from November to January. No one cares about who will break the internet next. No one cares what dress will be worn by such and such and so and so. No one cares, because in a short while no one will be talking about it. That's what history teaches us. General history books simply become smaller every year, because trivial details vanish in place of those things that matter. The rest becomes trivial details for board games that only reveal who has the largest garbage brain.

All of these issues plague the Christian's ability to do more. For instance, I once heard CLA lawyer David Gibbs explain how his son began reading the Bible through EVERY MONTH! The first thought is, wow, that guy must have a lot of time on his hands. He doesn't. Gibb's son, David Gibbs III, began reading the Bible through every month during his college years. He worked a full time job at the same time as he attended college. David III continued reading the Bible through every month as he attended Duke University's Law school, and graduated at the top of his class. Oh, and he still worked a full time job, supported a wife, and had children. Today, Gibbs III is a full time lawyer, who has been before the Supreme Court. He still reads the Bible through monthly.

Gibbs has the same amount of time as you and I. He has 24 hours. He just uses them better. He doesn't waste time. He fills time with things that matter. 

What matters then? Nothing on this earth. Solomon saw it all, had it all, and did it all. He was left depressed at the end of his life. He did not redeem the time. He did not use his life to serve God. Upon looking back at his life, as he records in Ecclesiastes, one can feel the utter hopelessness of it all. Then Solomon's wisest statement, if that can be qualified, is made when he says that serving God is all that matters. 

How does one serve Him then? Christ has called His followers to do only two things essentially - Evangelize and Disciple. Everything we do must be wrapped in context of those two issues. Our work, our play, our life must exemplify Christ in those commands to service. These things cannot be accomplished well, however, if we're entangled with the affairs of this world. 

I already hear the cries, especially from the political realm. "We have a responsibility to vote, etc..." Fine, vote then. Just know that the only thing that changes with elections are the people in office. The system, and those who work in the system do not change every time a new politician is elected. Those politicians are short term, the system is long term, and it doesn't rely upon your votes.

"But what about different causes that we need to stand for!?!" Who's cause is it? 

Don't waste your time. It's all you have, and then you won't have it anymore. It's too precious. Cut the nonsense out, and add value, real value. Count the cost, and realize that serving Christ, the way He commanded and exemplified, is what makes our time worthwhile. Otherwise, in the long run, we're all dead, and it's all vanity. 

This Is How I Taught Inherited Sin Nature - The Pro-Sin Nature Position, and A Commentary Refutation

According to the majority of Christian thought, man has inherited a Sin Nature as a direct result of Adam's fall in the  Garden of Eden. Most readers of this blog understand that I am against the Inherited Sin Nature position, but perhaps most do not know that I used to hold to and teach Inherited Sin Nature during my teaching career. Most of the people who debate against my anti-ISN viewpoint assume that I do not know what the doctrine states, and attempt to educate me regarding this quite old doctrine. That being the case, I'm going to attempt  to prove that I have a handle on the issue by writing this post in defense of Inherited Sin Nature. (I have also decided to include a refutation of each point, as will be noted by comments such as these in red).

Why do men sin? According to Genesis 3, Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden, and given one command - Do not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. No one knows how long this couple kept the command, but one day Satan in the form of a serpent enticed Eve to think about eating the fruit of the tree. She knew the command, and refused at first by saying that they weren’t to eat of it, or even touch it lest they die. No matter, Satan then said that God didn’t want the humans to eat of the tree, because they’d become gods. Thoroughly enticed now, Eve eats of the tree. Adam, who according to I Timothy 2 was not deceived by Satan, went along with Eve in eating, and thusly man fell. 

- Adam and Eve were just created by God. They did not have a "sin nature", but were enticed by fleshly desires. Eve was hungry. Adam wanted his wife. Satan used those God-given desires, and tempted man to sin. This pattern is the same today as it was in the Garden. James 1:14-15 illustrates how sin works from temptation to choice of sin to death. Nothing has changed. Further, this does not contradict Romans 5:12, as we shall see below.

God’s voice then comes walking through the Garden, and Adam and Eve hid. Once God uncovers the now sinful humans, He asks a series of questions concerning why Adam and Eve were clothed. “We saw that we were naked”, Adam said. “Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat of the tree?” Immediately Adam blames Eve. God turns to Eve, who then blames the serpent.

God then issues out a series of curses. 1. The serpent is cursed in that he must now slither and eat dust. He is also cursed in that women will hate him, and try to kill him. (There is also a prophetic statement here as well, but it is out of the scope of this article). 2. The woman has to endure greatly increased sorrow in child birth. She also is placed under the husband’s control. 3. The man is cursed in that he must eat of the fruit of the ground in sorrow all the days of his life. Work becomes hard labor. 4. All mankind will taste of physical death, and will return to dust.

- I believe that this is a key moment in the history of man. God punishes Adam and Eve for sin. The key inherited punishment here is death. Romans 5:12 reiterates this point in that Sin entered the world through Adam, because he (Adam and Eve are both called Adam in Genesis 5:2) was the first man to sin. Romans 5:12 then goes on to say that death, not sin as so many read into the verse, passed upon all men because of their sin. Sin being passed down from generation to generation is not mentioned in either Genesis or Romans. Why not? If inherited Sin Nature were part of the Fall and Curse, wouldn't it then be mentioned in Genesis 3?

Adam and Eve then had children. The first two named in the Bible are Cain and Abel. These boys had special talents, one was a shepherd, while the other was a farmer. One day they were to offer a sacrifice to God based upon His specifications. When Cain offered his sacrifice, God was not pleased. Abel’s sacrifice, however please God, which angered Cain tremendously. Hatred filled Cain to the point that he murdered Abel. This action shows a further affect of Adam and Eve’s sin – namely that sin was passed down to their children. The rest of the next 6 chapters in Genesis are filled with sin, such sin that God had to destroy man, because the imaginations of man’s heart were only evil continually (a great illustration of how sin nature had spread throughout mankind).

- It is commonly taught that because Cain did not have to be taught how to murder that this is a representation of Inherited Sin Nature. How did this sin come to pass? God gave a command. Cain transgressed that command, and it displeased God. Abel's sacrifice pleased God, which set the temptation for Cain into motion. He was tempted and acted upon that sin, hatred, which led to the next sin, murder. Before Cain acted upon the temptation, God gave Cain a choice, do well, and please God, or don't do well, and sin will be his desire and ruler. Cain chose sin. It was at Cain's choosing that sin began to rule over Cain, not at his birth. This issue was personal to Cain, and had no further influence upon mankind, except that now God had to create a new law. (More sin, more laws. Notice the pattern throughout scripture. Adam only had one Law, Moses had 430+).  

God did destroy mankind with the flood, but he spared Noah, his wife, and their three sons with their wives in the Ark. Soon after the Ark settled upon Mt. Ararat, however, that ugly sin nature revealed itself again when Canaan made Noah drunk, and looked upon his nakedness. Another curse, one upon Canaan and his descendants, is levied. Noah’s family then spreads throughout the region in accordance to God’s command to be fruitful and multiply.  But eventually, man rebels against God by congregating together in the plains of Shinar. It is there that Noah’s descendants built Babylon and the Tower of Babel. God then punishes man by confusing their language, which forces the inhabitants to spread outward from one another.

- Canaan sinned here. It was premeditated, and had to take some time, because he would have had to grow grapes from the ground up (a very time consuming process), then cultivated them properly, then harvested, and finally brewed them into the alcoholic drink. This would have taken years of growth and experimentation on Canaan's part. After he settled upon the right concoction, Canaan would have then tricked Noah, and then taken liberties with his grandfather. All of this shows premeditation and blatant action on Canaan's part. His uncles, Shem and Japheth, wanted no part of this wickedness. The curse placed upon Canaan fits with Exodus 20:5 in that God promised to punish the third and fourth generations of them that hate me. Canaan and his descendants certainly knew who God was, but chose to sin blatantly and openly against Him. Any summary study concerning the Canaanite civilizations will reveal just how wicked these descendants chose to be. This is why God commanded Israel to destroy them upon their return to the Promised Land.

Using Canaan, however, as an example of sin nature is unequivocal. Canaan's curse was for him and his descendants only. In spite of that fact, Rahab, a Canaanite from Jericho is listed in the line of Christ (Matthew 1:5). As I will note later, if inherited sin nature can be inferred from here, then Rahab's being in the line of Christ would directly imply that Christ would have inherited that very same sin nature.

These men founded societies and cultures across the planet. Their descendants became the Assyrians, Babylonians, Chinese, Incas, Aztecs, Pashtuns, Russians, Jews, Greeks, etc…. All of them had one thing in common, they were all descendants of Adam, and all cursed with a Sin Nature. This is blatantly evident in how idolatrous, murderous, pornographic, and adulterous these many civilizations became. Sin dominated mankind, but God chose to work through one of these nations, Abraham’s nation, the Hebrews (Jews), in order to bring a Savior, Jesus Christ. The remainder of the Old Testament points to the future coming Messiah, while along the way revealing how wicked man is.

- The only things they all had in common was a free will to choose whether or not to honor God, and death. As nations, they all failed. There were, however, individuals who chose to honor God. The Old Testament has examples of non-Jews who turned to God, such as Rahab, Uriah the Hittite, Ruth the Moabitess, Nebuchadnezzar, Assyria during Jonah's ministry, etc... They all had a choice, and at first chose sin. Later, they would choose God. 

Job, a man praised by God, soon reveals that he has sinned. He declares that men born of woman are a few days full of trouble (14:1). They are sinners from birth! David reiterates this point in Psalm 51:5 when he declares that he was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did his mother conceive him.  He further states that the wicked are estranged from the womb, and go astray as soon as they are born speaking lies (Psalm 58:3). All of this further illustrates how sin had passed down from Adam. Moses even weighs in with Exodus 20:5 by saying that He visits inquity upon the fathers of the third and fourth generations of them that hate me. All of this is to say that man sins from birth, because sin was passed down to them by their fathers.

- Tim and I have already covered Job 14, Psalm 51, and Psalm 58:3 but because I'm commenting on the ISN position here, let me make a few remarks.

Job 14 does not say that man is full of trouble from birth. He says that he is a few days, and full of trouble. Time is indicated here, how much time is not known, but it has to be enough time for the issues listed in Job 11-14 to be completed. A baby does not have enough days to fit that list. 

Psalm 51:5, is usually quoted alone, and well out of context, as are the other two passages. In context, Psalm 51 is a deeply sorrowful outpouring of David's sinful acknowledgement and heartfelt repentance. David is saying that he made the choice. He, and he alone, sinned against God. If he were making the claim that he sinned because he was born a sinner, then he'd have to be blaming God or his mother for making him to be a sinner. It is God who creates babies in the womb (Psalm 139:13, Jeremiah 1:5). Those babies are a gift and an heritage from the Lord (Psalm 127:3). David even goes on to say that he is fearfully and wonderfully made by God (Psalm 139:14). The weight of scripture is against David saying that God formed him in sin. Scripture clearly states that God is the one creating babies in the womb, and those babies are His fearful and wonderful creation. 

Further, if David were blaming someone or something else for his sin, then repentance would be stopped, because he'd have been making an excuse, other than his own willful choosing to sin, as to why he sinned. This is exactly what Adam and Eve did in the Garden of Eden. God did not hear their excuses, nor does he hear any man's excuses. He only hears the broken and contrite heart. David's heart was truly broken and contrite, as seen here and Psalm 38. Bottom line, it was David's fault for sin, and he acknowledged that beautifully.

Finally on Psalm 51, it is dangerous to create doctrines based upon figurative, poetic language. If this passage were entirely literal, then a cure for sin is purging with hyssop, as David asks God to do in verse 7. 

Psalm 58:3 - Once again, be careful of figurative/poetic language and context. David is only talking about the wicked in the passage, as opposed the righteous mentioned in the chapter's ending. To paint his picture, David uses figurative language throughout - poison of a serpent, deaf adder, lion's teeth, etc... Zeroing in on verse 3, David does not say that from birth the wicked are sinful. Babies don't talk (notice the figurative language), they don't have teeth, let alone lion's teeth, they're not full of snake poison. David does not want all babies to melt away and destroyed in order for him to walk in their pools of blood. The passage has even less to do with why men sin. 

Because of Adam, we need a savior. Romans 5:12 declares that we all sinned in Adam. Furthermore Romans 5:19 states that by one man we all became sinners. We are without hope, totally incapable, and lost in sins because of Adam’s choice in the Garden.

- Romans 5:12 says that sin entered the world through Adam, but Death, not Sin, passed upon all men, because all have sinned. Romans 5:19 does say that many were made sinners by one man (Adam). It says many, not all. The second half of the verse goes on to say that many were made righteous by one man (Christ). If many means all in the first part of the verse, then just a few words later in the second part, many has to also mean all. It's not the case, however, that all were made righteous by Christ. That being made righteous hinges upon man choosing Christ, which not all men have done. What is being highlighted here in Romans 5 is that man has a choice, and the greatest choice is Christ. Contextually, as a whole, this passage taught as a support for ISN could only lead to a series of unscriptural doctrines, but that's not within the scope of this article. 

Paul famously illustrates how the flesh wars against the spirit in Romans 7. He shows the saved that though they’re born again, they still have to fight that sin nature until they die, and receive their glorified bodies. He continues in Romans 8 by revealing that the Christian can either be in the Spirit or in the Flesh. Because of this, he must war against the flesh daily. This is one reason (the other two are the world and the Devil) why we need the whole armor of God as listed in Ephesians 6. We need it and Christ in order to fight against the works of the flesh listed in Galatians 5. It is against such sin/carnal/fleshly nature that we must fight in order to please God and fully enjoy the Fruit of the Spirit.

- Mike Miller wrote a series of three articles (here, here, and here) that summarize how Roman's 7 is not supporting inherited sin nature. Please, read those if you've struggled with Romans 7 and this topic. 

Briefly, however, Romans 7 fits in with Romans 1-8 as a whole dialogue. Specifically, Romans 5:12-Romans 8 are to be taken contextually together. Romans 6 talks about sin's being crucified, nailed to the cross, killed, destroyed, etc.... If this be the case, then how could a supposedly born again man be struggling with the dead corpse of sin in Romans 7, while also living a victorious, Spirit-filled Christian life in Romans 8? How could sin abide in a person's life, while Christ also abides? How can one be filled with the Spirit and sin concurrently? Or are we talking about losing salvation and regaining it over and over and over until we, hopefully, die in Christ? Where is the victory promised in Romans 7:25 and the Spirit-filled life of Romans 8? 

Bluntly, if Romans 7 is about the daily struggle of a born-again man, then Romans 8:1 is a lie. We'd all still be condemned, even in the Spirit. None of it could make any sense, unless, the traditional view of Romans 7 is incorrect. Romans 7 does teach about a struggle with sin, while under the Law, that is as an un-repentant, lost man. Paul is not saying that while he was unsaved while writing the passage. He's illustrating what his struggle was like as an unsaved, though religious person, long before he wrote the passage. Under the Law he had no victory. Under Grace his life is victorious. He, and those in Christ, are more than conquerors!

This is what Adam’s choice did for all mankind. We need a new Adam. We need Christ, without whom we’d remain dead in our trespasses and sins. We needed Him to redeem us, and declare wicked sinners righteous, even though we don’t deserve such favor. Though He did all of that, we will still have to struggle against sin for the rest of our lives, because of what Adam’s choice brought to mankind. But we will be freed from sin’s power, once we enter glory and receive our glorified bodies. Oh what a day that will be!

- We certainly do still fight a battle. We do have to fight the world, the flesh, and the devil. The world is Satan's structured system. It comprises anything and everything he can use to make a believer stumble, or keep a lost in darkness. The flesh, though not inherently wicked, is weak. It has limitations. It needs food, sleep, drink, and sex, or the human race would cease to exist. All of those desires were present in the Garden of Eden before death, or Satan would have had no way to tempt man. Those desires are God-created and God-given. Our flesh is also God-given, and he expects us to yield our members unto righteousness. 

Simply put, our bodies are tools for his service. In Christ, our bodies become His holy temples on earth (I Corinthians 6:19 and Ephesians 2:21). Essentially, we are not our bodies. Our bodies are where our soul dwells on earth, and we communicate with one another through our bodies. When our bodies cease to exist, we, our soul as Ezekiel 18:20 for example defines our being, continue, either unto life with Christ, or unto death in Hell. 

A tool can be used in any number of ways. A knife can be used to cut meat, or it can be used to kill. The knife is not evil, it had no choice in the matter. It was controlled by the user. Our bodies, likewise, can be used for good, if we choose it, or evil, if we choose it. The flesh isn't evil or good either way. The flesh can only be defined by what we make it. An adulteress has an adulteress body, because she chooses adultery, and so on and so forth. She's yielded her members to unrighteousness, and in so doing is in sin's control and bondage. 

Satan does not want us to use our bodies for Christ, and he actively uses all he can to hinder our yielding to Christ's service. We, spiritually speaking, have to put on the whole armor of God to stand against Satan. What good would protecting our flesh be, if it's our flesh that is the problem? No, the problem is from without, and what we choose to do with the problem is up to us. Choosing righteousness through Christ yields life eternal. Choosing sin brings death. It is up to you to make the decision either way. Once yielded to Christ, He promises victory, fruit, and life eternal, because He crucified sin, and the grave has lost her victory (I Corinthians 15).

(Ok, I don’t think I missed anything here. Granted it is a very brief summary, but that is how Sin Nature was taught to me in Bible College and Seminary, as well as growing up in a Christian home, attending  Christian Schools, hearing thousands of sermons, reading many tracts, witnessing to the lost, and studying the issue extensively from Augustine to Calvin to today’s theologians. It is how I taught it to my students. If I missed anything, please comment below, and let me know). 

The "Done with Church" Crowd - A Response to Aaron Carpenter

For whatever reason a series of articles concerning church attendance surfaced this week. I posted one of them on my Facebook page, and a small  and enjoyable discussion unfolded. I did not know who would respond, nor did I know how anyone would comment. Normally, at least based upon my experience discussing this topic, I receive comments from pastors or longtime church attendees. Normally, those comments run the typical religious gamut of irate irrationality. This time was different… so far. A (former) pastor did respond. To me, not just any pastor, a pretty good friend of mine from college/seminary. He stunned me. He did not support the church, he left it all behind. It’s not so stunning that people leave their churches, it happens all of the time. Pastors on the other hand, they seem to leave only amidst public scandal (eg. Jack Schaap et. al). To say the least, I was intrigued. Others were as well, namely another friend of mine and the former pastor, Aaron Carpenter. Aaron was a pastor (still is), who is now attempting to reach the Seattle area. Aaron weighed in on the side of not leaving church, but understands some of the issues plaguing churches today. He decided to use my discussion as a jumping off point for a blog article. He raises a few questions therein, I’ll attempt to address them all.

Aaron leads off with the main questions at hand, “What is church? Who knows anymore?” I’m not so sure about his answer, however. He assumes that everyone knows it’s not the building, but the people, even if we admit that the term is most often used to refer to a building. I don’t want to pass on this point. Though it’s true most do pay lip-service to the belief that the church is the people, they do not practice that belief. The majority of those in the “church” crowd, both pastors and members, spend a great deal of time telling people that they need to be in church, attend church, go to church or some other form of be in church when the doors are open exhortation. If there is a problem in someone’s life, quite often the comment, “If they were in church this wouldn’t have happened”, is stated. Bottom line, church attendance is primetime preaching. One simply has to attend during the set time, for the set period, at the set place, or he’s not in church. I’m glad that many understand, in word, that the church is not the building, but that’s not what they practice. In this case, actions speak louder than words.

Aaron admits something that people rarely admit, that many are leaving the church. In fact, the exodus is so large that the brand Aaron and I would most closely resemble, Fundamental Baptist, seems set to vanish with our generation. Be honest pastors and church goers. There is an enormous age gap in your congregation. There are those who are 50+, very few 20-50 year olds, and children. I don’t care much for “studies” or “statistics”, but in this case, no matter the philosophical or theological bent, there is near total agreement that once children become 18 year olds they are out of their childhood churches. More damning for the system, is that those people rarely come back, hence the current discussion. A recent article done by shock-columnist Matt Walsh, a Catholic, illustrates the point. Church is boring. It’s not boring because the service is traditional, as he says contemporary services are also boring. So, don’t focus on how the show is run, the show is boring no matter how it’s acted out. There is a deeper, and stolidly neglected, issue here, but more on that later.

I can wholeheartedly understand where Aaron is coming from in his Full Disclosure section. I was there. I was a teacher, coach, youth director, visitation leader… in a church-school. By worldly standards, I was somewhat successful too. One can find my name in the Who’s Who registry twice for my work as an educator. I won two state soccer championships as a coach. I was involved in a vibrant visitation program that, by faulty doctrinal standards, boasted 500+ saved. The youth group I worked in boasted numbers greater than most of the churches still in existence across America. I was set in the Fundamental Baptist Circle. That’s what I knew, it’s how I was raised, it’s who educated me.

Oddly enough, some of the constant praise that is heaped upon Christian educators/leaders goes something like this, “We/They could be doing this somewhere else, for much more money, but chose to serve for much less.” For a while I believed this. I’m sure many others did and do. Aaron alludes to the same thought when he commented about an increase in pay. It’s frankly not true. This is not intended to sound bitter, please do not take it that way. Our education, our work, our life within that circle is only useful within that circle.  When I came to that realization, I was petrified. I knew I had to leave, but fear kept me in the wrong place for at least a year and a half too long. My fears were justified when I resigned my position, took an office job at a startup company that folded two months after I moved to upstate NY , was unemployed for four months, and found a part-time job at Best Buy. After that I moved back home to Virginia to try to reset and start over.

The reality is that all of my education, my BA, my MA, my previous positions did not mean much outside of the circle. If people were honest, they’d admit this too. In fact, Fundamental Baptist schools do realize this, and are now caving under pressure to accredit themselves. It’s an admission of this reality. (See more about what accreditation actually entails here and here). This opens up an entirely different discussion which cannot be handled in this article.

Aaron is to be praised at least for admitting that a “leaving the church as he sees it” viewpoint threatens his work. It is his self-proclaimed vocation. But therein lies the main crux of the institutional church argument. As he says, he’s spent 11 years working for a church, and he’s been paid based upon the premise of I Timothy 5:17. Aaron rightly concludes that according to the “Done” viewpoint his position as a salaried pastor would be abolished. That’s a scary proposition, as I detailed above. He’d have to restart his life in his 30’s, but this time with a family to clothe, feed, and shelter. I appreciate his honesty. I have no other reason but to believe he’s being honest when he says that he shares some of the same concerns offered by the “Done” crowd, even if he finds some of it frustrating (or scary).

Now for the meat. His questions.

How do you practice Ephesians 4:11-16 in your Christian Life? Perhaps I’m not fully following Aaron’s line of thought. Is he saying that Ephesians 4:11-16 can only be accomplished within a local church’s four walls? I’m really not sure. If so, then how much of what is listed in the passage is being done by one man in the institution setting? It seems that Ephesians 4, as well as other passages throughout the New Testament illustrate many people, who all have functions within the church. For instance, the Holy Grail of the “Go To Church” crowd, Hebrews 10:25, states one another. Institutional churches just don’t reach the standard of one another doing the ministry. How does the terrible cliché go? 90% of the work is done by 10% of the people. Isn’t that an illustration of how Ephesians 4 is not being done properly in the institutional setting?

Since the question was, “How does the ‘Done’ crowd do Ephesians 4, I should illustrate how we do it. We do it by actively evangelizing the lost, we do it by actively discipling one another, we do it by actively fellowshipping together. All aspects of Ephesians 4 are covered therein.  The key is that we are all involved, instead of just one of us talking to all of the others. It’s not too hard actually. In fact, it’s only possible in a smaller setting. I used to think that the fact that institutional church failure to do this passage was winked at by God under the “There’s no such thing as a perfect church” comment. The problem is that mindset is damning in that it cheapens Christ’s commands for what the church is and is to be doing. (I use the term church here in the purest Biblical sense of the word, as a body of individual believers serving Christ in communities all over the world).

I must admit that I have no idea where Aaron is coming from by referencing Hebrews 3-4 in a church context. In context the passage is referring to lost Jews, who need to enter into the rest of Christ. It’s all about turning from sin and accepting their Messiah. Forgive my ignorance, Aaron, if you read this, please enlighten me as to why you included this passage.

As for I Corinthians 14, I agree, it is about corporate, mutual member ministry. Again, one another as mentioned in Hebrews 10, which you also reference. I Corinthians 14 can only be done well in smaller settings. Once a certain group size has been exceeded, doing the commands within the group become strained at best. I’ve never seen an institutional church of any size, and I’ve been in both small and mega churches, properly carry out I Corinthians 14 or Hebrews 10.

As for Hebrews 10, I mentioned in my comment thread that this passage has nothing to do with going to church. In context this is part of a whole. It is a message to the Jews (Hence the name of the book), about their need to accept Christ. Church is just not part of the subject matter at all. Hebrews 10 is even less so. Look at how the chapter starts and finishes. It starts with a discussion about the Law, continues with comments about paying for sin, then it goes into an evangelism call in verses 24-25. It is a call for saved Jews to not forsake unsaved Jews, but to compel them to repent and trust in Christ. It is of necessity not a church passage, but a salvation passage. The chapter finishes by strongly encouraging those who know the Bible (Old Testament) to see how Christ fulfills all of those promises, and believe on Him.

Either way, let’s play the Hebrews 10:24-25 game for a second. The passage states –

And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

Does everyone in your church exhort each other? It’s not just the pastor’s responsibility. It’s everyone’s responsibility. The modern pulpit/pew system does not allow for one another exhortation. It’s not a command to go to church at all, even out of context. It’s a command on how to be around other believers, once again, out of context. Most churches are filled with gossip, bitterness, and hatred, let alone pride and apathy. In that setting how do those churches fulfill Hebrews 10 or I Corinthians 14? Love? Good Works?

Aaron’s next question is about who does the shepherding for the Done crowd. He cites Acts 20:28-29 and I Peter 5:1-4 as support. Both passages are fun for me.

Acts 20 is Paul’s final words of sorts to the elders at Ephesus, as noted in v. 17.  I Peter also seems to be final words of sorts, for the book at least. The comments are also addressed to elders. Now, the question is, who are the elders? Are they pastors? Let’s use the passage that Aaron cited in I Timothy 5. In context, the passage is written by Paul, an apostle, not a pastor, to Timothy, a pastor, about how to treat Elders within his body of believers. Did you get all of that? According to Aaron’s, and other pastors’, viewpoint, I Timothy 5 is about how pastors should receive double honor (that is a salary in most cases). It’s also about how they, the pastor/elder, should be respected as an authority. But Timothy was the pastor, not an elder. The elders were those within Timothy’s group, both men and women as the passage talks about both genders, who deserved double honor because of the godly lives they lived. (a side note, if elders are pastors, then women pastors are supported by this passage).

One other thing to mention from Acts 20, Paul sets up the way that a ministry worker should support himself in vss. 33-35. He should work. Paul worked, he was a tentmaker, as we know. This exhortation, however, is quite practical in that a ministry worker who takes no money cannot be compromised by making a living by serving Christ. Note Paul’s further comments about work in II Thessalonians 3 as well as how Paul said that his taking money would hinder the gospel’s sake in I Corinthians 9:12. So that leaves me begging the question, why do Pastors take a salary?

I Peter 5 is a bad passage for Aaron to use in terms of vocation, that is, being in the ministry and receiving a paycheck (v2). But let’s put that aside for a second. Peter was an elder, but we never see him as a pastor as such. He is an apostle and certainly an evangelist. He claims to be an elder here as well, and I’m sure that by the time this was written, he was an elder. I say all of that to illustrate that this passage is to older/wiser in Christ people of the church. This is a how to act as an elder exhortation, not a call for pastors to some sort of spiritual authority.

On the same topic of authority Aaron references Hebrews 13:7 and 17. Again, this book is written to the Hebrews, and so much of this chapter is full of Jewish comments. Priests are mentioned, sacrifices are mentioned, the Law in various forms is mentioned. What is not mentioned are pastors. I do understand the idea that the pastor as a ruler seems to fit in here, but it does not anywhere else in the New Testament. That makes me wonder if there is another way that this passage must be viewed. The biggest question for me is that before Christ’s throne is my pastor going to be standing next to me? That’s how some pastors view it, not necessarily Aaron mind you.  The reality is that we will all stand alone before Christ to give an account, so please, don’t think that you and your church will be behind your pastor, who then gives an account. That’s, quite bluntly, nonsense.

Ultimately, and I don’t mean to sound too pious, we all give an account to Christ for what we choose to do for Him. We are guided by the Holy Spirit, as Christ said in John, and as John further expounded upon in I John 2:20 and 27. I don’t need a man to “shepherd” me. That sounds to me like a curiously Catholic trap. Whether or not it was intended to be stated as such.

As for evangelism and further fellowship thereafter. The current church model is horrifically broken, let’s be honest. A typical visitation program has well less than 10% of its members attend. Out those who do attend, they may seek one on one conversations with strangers, but more than likely the idea is to visit those who visited the church service. In so doing a paltry number of people may be reached at all. Of those who “get saved” very few ever attend that church. Even fewer than that are ever “discipled” in any Biblically meaningful way. Witnessing should be one on one, and discipling should also be one on one. We do that. It helps to create very strong ties and much deeper fellowship.

Baptism and “Communion” as you term it are extremely simple. We baptize after we see fruits meet for repentance. Communion for us is so much easier than for those within the institutional setting. We do not fellowship with (knowingly) lost people. We do our best to not invite lost people to fellowship with us at all, based entirely upon the many exhortations to not have fellowship with unfruitful works of darkness, cast out the leaven, etc. that you well know. So, when we partake of Lord’s Supper, it’s a joyous occasion much unlike the somber dirges found within the organ-plagued institutional church.

Those with spiritual gifts are to use them. I’ve touched upon “one another” more than enough already. How do your churches handle them? Do others get to lead the Sunday service, or preach, or teach on Wednesday night?

I confess that I do not understand the point of the “that was then” comments in Aaron’s article. Most often when I hear that comment it is, well that was then in the New Testament, we aren’t in a nation which persecutes Christians anymore, so we can meet freely, openly. Warning! Christians are to be salt and light. They’ve never been accepted by the world. If you feel that we’re free and open to serve Christ, then you’ve never boldly proclaimed the gospel for any meaningful period. Christ promised His followers in John 15 that they SHALL suffer persecution. This illustrates the point that modern American Christianity, which suffers little or no persecution, has lost its savor. That, or Christ is a liar. You choose.

What did weddings and funerals in the Bible look like? Is this even a Biblical argument? Come on now. The lost get married and have funerals in churches all of the time. Cultural norms do not equal Biblical practices. Besides, weddings and funerals within churches as we know them today, though not necessarily evil, is a hold-over from the Catholic Church, who used to institute those things for monetary purposes. (Check Charlemagne and William the Conqueror, both tools of the Papacy, out for something of an idea here).

Mathew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5!? If churches practiced this today, then no church would have more than 15 people therein. I mean, really, truthfully practiced this. Which sins, what level of sin, what excuses for sinning, are given in practicing or not practicing discipline? Let’s be honest, church discipline in the institutional setting is near impossible, which is why it is rarely, if ever done. Don’t kid me, I was a Navy brat, so I’ve been to many churches, north, south, east, and west.  I’ve seen it all, and the exception does not disprove the reality that discipline, if it happens at all, only happens for the “Big” sins, whatever that means. Those sins may go punished, meanwhile all the other “little” sins go unpunished or unnoticed. It’s so easy to hide in the institutional church, that’s why.

Finally, missions is questioned. I don’t want to fellowship with people who don’t have the same zeal for reaching the lost as I do. We seek out places where the lost are – hint, that’s anywhere, and, yes, sometimes we do what Paul did, which is, visit religious establishments to pull some out. It’s not hard to find lost people, which really makes me wonder why Aaron asks the question in the first place. What’s hard, is finding people who are truly saved with whom to fellowship.

Aaron, this is to you directly now. I’m glad that you’re angered with the things you mentioned in the end of your article. I’m more hopeful that your church does not experience those things. I can understand why you’re not “done yet.” I believe I’ve answered most of your questions, and perhaps raised a few more. I think you’ll honestly consider them, research them, and pray to God for wisdom.  You asked at the end, “what are you prepared to do to help the rest of us?” Well, for one, I opened up the conversation. I raised the issues, answered your questions, illustrated what I perceive to be flaws (if my narrow viewpoint is worth anything), and tried to illustrate a better way to do all the things you mentioned.  My question for you is can you honestly, biblically support church as it is being done now? I fear you may not, because you have a lot to lose. I no longer have anything to lose, it has already all been lost. That has allowed me much greater freedom to serve Christ.