Honestly, is there anything
controversial here?
And do
not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,
addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and
making melody to the Lord with your heart, giving thanks always and for
everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting
to one another out of reverence for Christ.
This passage (Eph. 5:18-21)
addresses at least four issues that Christians have debated and continue to
debate. When I preached a series on
Ephesians, I devoted at least one sermon to each of the topics raised in this
passage. I won’t do that here. Rather
than treat each topic in separate posts, I will briefly touch on each issue in
this post. I am doing this, not because
the issues are unimportant, but because they have been so often treated in
books, articles, sermons, and blogs elsewhere.
Do not
get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery. May a Christian drink alcohol? For most of church history Christians would
have likely answered, “Sure, just not too much.” Not until the mid-nineteenth
century did evangelical Christians begin to insist drinking alcohol was
wrong. Even Baptists were divided on the
issue. As late as the 1880s, the London
Baptist Association served wine at their meetings. But by the twentieth century most Baptist
groups in America denounced drinking; they shared that position with
denominations born out of the Holiness movement and with a sizeable number of
Methodists. To a degree, Prohibition was
the product of a very temporary cooperation of these evangelical groups and
liberal or progressive Protestants in America.
Evangelist Billy Sunday even asked
for a pledge to “get on the water wagon” (stop drinking alcohol) from those who
responded during his crusades.
Despite this tradition, not every
Baptist embraces teetotalism (I can’t speak for my Nazarene or Pentecostal
friends). Jimmy Carter, despite some
rumors to the contrary, drank wine and reportedly had an occasional
cocktail. Some Baptist churches insist
on using “real” wine in the communion service.
Still, many Baptists would question the fundamental spirituality of
anyone drinking even a lite beer.
Whose position is more faithful to
the biblical materials?
Very simply, the Bible does not
teach abstinence. Psalm 104, in fact,
depicts wine as a gift from God. But the
Bible writers clearly were aware of the inherent dangers of alcohol. The strongest warnings may be found in the
Book of Proverbs. Just look at Proverbs
23:29-35. Still, even its graphic
description of being drunk and experiencing a hangover concerns “those who
linger over wine.” The New Living
Translation describes the this person as one who “… who spends long hours in the taverns.” So, even this passage
does not teach complete abstinence. A
subsequent passage that warns kings against wine includes the admonition to
“give wine to those who are in anguish.”
It may be that the warning is a primarily a call for rulers to be
clearheaded.
Where does the notion that using
alcohol is always wrong come from? Most
likely it comes from the widespread abuse of alcohol found in early nineteenth
century American and among the poor in urban England; spiritual leaders believed
it better to call for the complete abandonment of alcohol than to trust
individuals to judge when they had had enough.
This led to some almost amusing
problems for the advocates of teetotalism.
Chief among them was Jesus’ miracle at the wedding in Cana where he
turned water into wine. The problem, of
course, was not the miraculous nature of the event; there was no questioning
Jesus’ power to do this remarkable feat.
But his act would have generated fewer problems had he arrived at the
wedding while everyone, including the bride and groom, was just a little
buzzed, and turned the wine into water.
The standard explanation—one I heard in Sunday school—was that the wine
wasn’t real wine; it was unfermented grape juice. Yet, appealing as that interpretation may be,
the language does not support it. The
word translated as wine in John 2 is the same used in Ephesians 5. This and the context make clear that Jesus
had produced genuine wine.
Yet, I remember sitting in a
seminary classroom listening to Dr. Huber Drumwright lecturing on the miracle
in John 2. When he explained that Jesus
had made wine not grape juice, I heard someone behind me mutter, “My Jesus
wouldn’t make real wine.”
I think each Christian must answer
the alcohol question. Your answer might
not be my answer.
Our answer must recognize the Bible
doesn’t demand abstinence. Anyone
insisting it does goes beyond what the Bible allows. At the same time, the Bible clearly condemns
drunkenness; drunkenness undermines the Spirit’s work in fostering our
self-control.
Our answer must allow our fellow
believers to act according to what their scripturally informed consciences tell
them.
Our answer must insist voluntarily
restraining our own freedom for the spiritual, mental, and physical wellbeing
of a brother or sister is not legalism.
Our answer must give no place to
the tendency to judge others who find an answer to the alcohol question
different from our own.
be
filled with the Spirit… In some
evangelical churches just the suggestion that believers should be filled with
the Spirit raises suspicions that the speaker is advocating emotionalism, at
best; or fanaticism, at worst. In other
evangelical churches, a sermon that doesn’t produce tears and “spontaneous”
shouts of “Hallelujah” is considered a
failure. As a consequence, we are a
little uncomfortable talking about the Spirit.
I recently read Grant Wacker’s Heaven Below: Early Pentecostalism and
American Culture (Harvard 2001). It
gave me insights into this influential movement I never had before. For instance, while the typical pentecostal
service was probably more lively than I would find comfortable, Pentecostals
seldom were so caught up in emotional frenzy that they lost control of
themselves. Pragmatism always asserted
itself. Ultimately, most found a balance
between the excesses of a Corinth and the hyper-caution of a Thessalonica.
But what does it mean to be
“filled” with the Spirit? Many analogies
are used to describe the experience, some better than others; I think the
context provides the best clue. Paul
contrasts being “drunk with wine” with being “filled with the Spirit.” What is called “drink-driving” in some
nations is called “DUI” or “driving under the influence” in the United
States. I think the notion of being
under the Spirit’s influence is key to understanding what Paul means by being
filled with the Spirit.
The Holy Spirit leads and prompts
us in our decisions and actions. Through
the Spirit we may exhibit courage we ordinarily wouldn’t have or speak with
wisdom not born from our efforts to analyze a problem. Yet, unlike being drunk with alcohol, we
never experience blackouts or memory loss, never engage in destructive
behavior, or suffer a hang-over that leaves us worried we may have embarrassed
ourselves or, more important, God.
When I was younger, I conceived the
experience of being filled with the Spirit as both mystical and somewhat
elusive. Today, I wonder if that is
true. I have definitely concluded God is
more interested in our being filled with the Spirit than we usually are. If the experience eludes us, the problem is
within us.
At the same time, while the
experience is supernatural it is not truly mystical. At least not mystical in that it comes to us
like a package from Amazon we don’t remember ordering. I’ve come to believe the Spirit’s filling
comes to us as a response to our faith, a faith that seeks to cooperate with
the Spirit.
In Galatians 5:24-25, Paul called
his readers to “live by the Spirit” or “walk in the Spirit.” I am going to explore those phrases because I
think they may be understood as tantamount to being filled with the Spirit.
Paul’s thought is captured in
Peterson’s paraphrase of the command: “Since this is the kind of life we have
chosen, the life of the Spirit, let us make sure that we do not just hold it as
an idea in our heads or a sentiment in our hearts, but work out its
implications in every detail of our lives.”
The phrase translated as “walk in
the Spirit” or “keep in step with the Spirit” literally means to have our
conduct framed by the Spirit. This would
involve the Spirit shaping all of our lives, not simply at church but wherever
we are. This calls for cooperation with
the Spirit.
This is especially true in
achieving the second part of Paul’s vision for our lives, that we be “guided by
the Spirit.”
But, how does this take place?
The Spirit guides through the
Scripture. The Bible consistently
teaches that it is the product of the Spirit’s inspiration, the Scriptures are
said to be “God-breathed.” When we
properly interpret the Scripture, we hear the Voice of the Spirit teaching us,
correcting us, and guiding us.
This doesn't mean you will find
directives for every issue you may face in your pilgrimage, but the Spirit can
help us take the material we find in the Scripture and weave it into a course to
take.
The Spirit guides through the
Church. In Acts 16, we are allowed
to observe a episode in the life of the church at Antioch. Luke reports:
“While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said,
‘Set Barnabas and Saul apart for me to do the work for which I called them.’
Then they fasted and prayed, laid their hands on them, and let them go.” While such remarkable experiences may not be
commonplace, the Spirit very often speaks with the voice of the church.
The Spirit guides through
direct, personal impressions. Of
course, we’ve all experienced pangs of conscience. That may well be the Spirit calling us on the
wrong we may have done or the good we have neglected to do. That’s a common experience. But these personal impressions also include
those occasions when we sense the Spirit prompting us to take a specific course
of action.
Of course, some Christians have
tragically confused the wrong voice for the voice of the Spirit. But when Christians recall the Spirit will
never contradict the Scripture and usually coincides with the counsel of their
fellow believers, they may feel comfortable considering those impressions.
While the Spirit will surely lead
Christians into opportunities for ministry, Paul probably is thinking of how being
led by the Spirit will produce the fruit of the Spirit in our lives. And that fruit will make us more Christlike
which is the sure sign we are filled with the Spirit.
Now, as I end these observations,
let me return once again to the analogy of being “drunk with wine” and being
“filled with the Spirit.” As I do so,
let me introduce an imaginary character I’ll call Jim Daniels. Jim is often drunk—with wine or some stronger
drink. But Jim isn’t always drunk. Despite his best efforts, the alcohol sometimes
dissipates from his system; he is dry but not necessarily high. Now, should Jim awake one day to find himself
sober, he can quickly remedy the situation.
A bottle is seldom far away.
Ideally, being filled with the
Spirit should be an ongoing experience; keeping in step with the Spirit should
be our daily adventure. But sometimes we
“awake” to realize we haven’t been behaving under the Spirit’s influence. We’ve allowed anger, fear, bitterness, doubt,
or self-centeredness to shape our attitudes and behavior. While Jim’s search for a fresh bottle might
be easier, our return to living in the Spirit is not a daunting journey. Getting back in step with the Spirit may call
for repentance before God, reconciliation with others we may have wounded, and
a sincere spiritual self-examination; but the Spirit stands ready to help. Indeed, even though we temporarily raise the
rebel flag over God-held territory, the Spirit is seldom far away.
…addressing
one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs… I posted an essay on music a couple
months ago. Since it includes an
examination of Paul’s instructions in this passage I’m not going to add much in
this post.
For Christians to be divided over
church music is surely sad, a scandal.
Paul seems to have envisioned the Christians “singing and making melody
to the Lord” as a foundation for unity and an opportunity to give thanksgiving
to God. When it inspires disunity and
complaints, something is wrong.
Christians engaged in this kind of
conflict have probably not heeded either the command to “be filled with the
Spirit” or the command to “submit” to one another.
…submitting
to one another out of reverence for Christ.
With this command Paul segues to specific instructions to groups
within the churches getting this letter.
The command to submit to one another is in the background of what he is
about to say to wives, husbands, children, parents, slaves, and masters.
In fact, we might argue that all he
says to those groups is intended to expand upon his call to mutual submission,
to illustrate what it means to submit as a wife, husband, etc.
But, in so doing, Paul writes some
of the most controversial words in the entire letter. With that in mind, a few words on submission
may be in order.
First, I don’t think submitting to
one another implies inferiority.
Second, I don’t think submitting to
one another means we are intended to surrender our right to speak or to express
an opinion. It certainly does not demand
we allow ourselves to be abused.
Third, I do think submitting to one
another may mean we appreciate the role
others play in our lives, our responsibility toward them, and their intrinsic
value in Christ.
Fourth, I do think submitting to
one another is not easy. It probably
isn’t possible for one who isn’t “filled with the Spirit.”
Perhaps the Contemporary English
Version comes close: “Honor Christ and
put others first.”
