HT: Ben Cole
On Gluttony…
WHEREAS, Years of research confirm biblical warnings that gluttony leads to physical, mental, and emotional damage (e.g. Proverbs 23:20-21); andWHEREAS, Gluttony defiles the temple of the Holy Spirit, our bodies, by causing numerous corollary maladies such as heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, osteoarthritis, stroke, and endometrial, breast, and colon cancer; and
WHEREAS, The meteoric rise of insurance premiums across our convention can be directly and indirectly attributed to the gluttonous dietary habits of many Southern Baptist ministers; and
WHEREAS, Chronic and morbid obesity among Christians is evidence of a failure to practice biblical stewardship, pursue godliness, and produce the spiritual fruit of self control (John 6: 27; Gal. 5:19-24); and
WHEREAS, The undisciplined consumption of food reflects a heart of idolatry (Phil. 3:18-19); and
WHEREAS, There are some religious leaders who now openly display their flagrant disregard for biblical principles that govern a believer’s diet, thus denying the church of the Lord Jesus Christ the power of its testimony that the gospel can deliver men from lives of selfish pursuit and worldly ambition for the sake of the Kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:12-13); and
WHEREAS, the expanding girth of many Southern Baptist ministers demonstrates the degree to which purported servants of Christ have sought excessively after those things that the pagans seek, having denied the beneficent and sufficient provision of their Lord (Mt 6:31); now therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in San Antonio, Texas, June 12-13, 2007, express our firm belief that the inerrant word of God condemns gluttony as an abomination and a terrible evil in the sight of the Lord; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we are embarrased by the degree to which our own wicked and idolatrous dietary habits have brought reproach on our Lord Jesus Christ and quenched the Spirit of God in our lives;
RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptists to take an active role in renewing their personal commitments to the spiritual discipline of fasting for the sake of the Kingdom of God; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we exhort one another to reflect godly priorities and holiness in all matters related to personal diet and wellness; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptist to be actively involved in educating students and adults concerning the destructive nature of gluttony; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we urge that no one be elected to serve as a trustee or member of any entity or committee of the Southern Baptist Convention that is a gluttonous person; and be it further resolved
RESOLVED, That we commend organizations and ministries that treat gluttony from a biblical perspective and promote a healthy diet and encourage local churches to begin and/or support such biblically-based ministries.
Ban the potluck! Down with Dessert Socials! No more picnics!
ReplyDeleteDown with the demon fooooood!
This is an amazing move by the SBC. Good for them!
ReplyDeleteI like this resolution, but the objections are going to be along the lines of people are obese now, but no longer eat as a glutton. There are slim people who are gluttons, but their metabolism helps them not become obese.
ReplyDeleteSo how do we tie this in with obesity? What is the answer to the pastor/deacon who is clearly obese and not so healthy and just doesn't diet and exercise but maintains their current physical state?
Mark
I don't know if Ben intends to introduce this resolution or not. He simply posted it on his blog and let folks draw their own conclusions. That said, knowing Ben, it's likely a response resolution to Resolution 5 last year.
ReplyDeleteRemember last year. The Convention turned down Tom Ascol's resolution on Integrity in Church Membership and approved Resolution 5 against the Demmin Likker in America (not the whole world, go figure).
The point, I would think, here, is that if we're going to cast stones against alckeehol and those who drink, even in moderation, if we're consistent, we'd pass a resolution against gluttony.
Will it pass? The key point, IMO, is this bit:
WHEREAS, The meteoric rise of insurance premiums across our convention can be directly and indirectly attributed to the gluttonous dietary habits of many Southern Baptist ministers; and WHEREAS, Chronic and morbid obesity among Christians is evidence of a failure to practice biblical stewardship, pursue godliness, and produce the spiritual fruit of self control (John 6: 27; Gal. 5:19-24); and WHEREAS, The undisciplined consumption of food reflects a heart of idolatry (Phil. 3:18-19); and WHEREAS, There are some religious leaders who now openly display their flagrant disregard for biblical principles that govern a believer’s diet, thus denying the church of the Lord Jesus Christ the power of its testimony that the gospel can deliver men from lives of selfish pursuit and worldly ambition for the sake of the Kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:12-13); and WHEREAS, the expanding girth of many Southern Baptist ministers demonstrates the degree to which purported servants of Christ have sought excessively after those things that the pagans seek, having denied the beneficent and sufficient provision of their Lord (Mt 6:31)
Will the SBC pass a resolution aimed directly at its own leadership. To a great extent, that section is spot on. Here, where I live, I see far more large ministers than small, and I know its not just their metabolism, since some of them have had heart attacks and lost the weight subsequently. I remember hearing, in seminary I think, many years ago, a man say, "God doesn't like fat preachers." He said it to strike a nerve; that is, don't get in your pulpit or behind your lectern and tell your people to practice self-control and care for the temple of the Holy Spirit if you aren't modeling it yourself. It's no different than preaching to your folks about stealing while you're skimming kickbacks from the offerings and embezzling money from the church - another case of which I witnessed last year in my home town.
I think the point is that Resolution 5 was really superficial and easy to pass, because, really, it didn't affect that many people directly, and if it did, it was only because it exceeded Scripture by making tea-totaling the norm qua norm for that issue. This resolution, by way of contrast, looking around the Convention on any given day it meets in June, would affect a great many directly; and, if you notice, Ben worded it very carefully, and demonstrated a very clear understanding of the biblical-exegetical issues.
By the way, if you click the link to the original article, Ben is having a wonderful chat with one of his commenters about this. He's spot on. The SBC passed a resolution about others' perceived sins, and one of the supporters of Resolution 5 is now there asking questions about "How do you tell who's a glutton and who isn't."
ReplyDeleteI guess this shows the mentality of the Tea-totaler. It's easy to pass that resolution with that sort of language, because the Bible's message on "drunkenness" can be redefined to make knowing who is a drunkard easier by drawing the line at tea-totaling. But the Bible really doesn't do that. So, this resolution has apparently put the fans of Resolution 5 on notice and given them a taste of their own medicine. Poetry in motion...
Here is my question: Is there a better way to do this that would bring about change in the SBC? Namely, a change that would result in a repentance from our own sins. Revival never comes from pointing out someone else’s sin unless you are like Nathan the prophet. Revival, if you study its history, usually starts when one person repents of their own sins. Just a thought my brother.
ReplyDeletePoint of Order: Why does that person/God's people repent? Revival begins when God's Spirit so moves, and the biblical pattern is generally as a result of somebody or a group rediscovering the text of Scripture itself, often casting off ecclesiastical tradition.
So, to answer the previous point David raised: But wouldn’t this post be basically doing the same thing as that resolution (not that I think you are planning on making this a resolution).
No, because the other resolution is simply an attempt to ensconce ecclesiastical tradition. Remember, the folks who argued for Resolution 5 have given us two arguments for it "exegetically." One begs the question regarding the defintion of wine, via the alleged percentages of alcohol and the other via God'd toleration of polygamy. The fact they can't agree on it, like the fact that most of them can't agree over what "foreknow" means in relation to election - for which there is far, far more biblical and lexical data - should tell us that Resolution 5 was nothing but ecclesiastical tradition.
Compare that to Ben's resolution.
Volfan007:
how do we know who is a glutton and who is not? weight is not really the telltale factor. and, what weight will we choose as the cut off point? where in the bible does it say what is too big and which weight is ideal?
And Volfan exemplifies the supporters of Res. 5. Here, we see the ease that he seeks in casting stones. If you declare teatotalling the norm qua norm from Scripture by way of bad exegesis and ecclesiastical tradition, then you can cast the stones at anybody who takes a sip. But now, he asks "how do you know who is a glutton and who isn't?" That's a good question. One would hope that if one can divine the exact percentage of alcohol in ancient wine and make an exegetical argument to boot and declare Scripture to be clear on wine, one would be able to do so for gluttony. What Volfan doesn't realize, it seems, is that Brother Ben has served him a sip of his own medicine, and this resolution would point its finger and at least half of those in attendance at the SBC.
Incidentally, Frank Turk challenged Volfan to a debate on Res. 5 over on his debate blog, and Volfan turned him down. I'd like to see that debate.
Ben Cole said:
So we are able to draw very clear lines of “sinful behavior” when it comes to things permissible in Scripture, i.e. drinking wine, but we can’t seem to draw any lines when it comes to things that are completely impermissible in Scripture, i.e. gluttony.
Well said!
So, how about it? Let's not forget that the same convention that voted for Res. 5 voted against a resolution on integrity in church membership on the notion that "some of them (the truants) are our best prospects for evangelism." Is there anything lower than passing a resolution against all alcohol (in America no less, not the whole world, I might add - a fact that undercuts the arguments of Res. 5's own supporters), while rejecting a resolution aimed at reaffirming a regenerate church membership _ the Baptist principle qua principle? One would think that those who would support Res. 5 would have no problem supporting this resolution.
Ben Cole should submit this, and if the Comm. on Resolutions does not bring it to the convention floor, he should do what Tom Ascol did and bring it himself.
The similarity between gluttony and sexual sin is remarkable. These types of sins are predominate in 'baser' sorts of people who are controlled by their appetites. They're deluded by pleasure. They see it as a good in itself. The things that give them pleasure are only means to get pleasure. A more christian approach is that food and sex are simply means to sustain and create life. Pleasure (or pain) is only a means to the act. Widespread obesity and venereal disease are tokens of the perversity of our hedonistic culture.
ReplyDelete