A couple days ago, I watched online a sermon preached at a large contemporary church not too far from where I live. The pastor is in a series of topical messages answering questions from the church and this message was about alcohol. Definitely a controversial issue!
Unfortunately, the pastor did not do right (toward the Lord or toward the people). Rather than giving a practical, Scripturally-informed “theology” of alcoholic beverages, he created a straw man out of weak arguments for the position opposite his and poked holes in it. I was disappointed.
One meaningless “argument” he made was as follows (and noting it is practical for other issues beside this one): In arguing (wrongly, in my estimation) that Bible wine is just like wine today, he responded to the historical and archaeological research about the dilution of wine in the ancient near east with an utterly illogical comment. He claimed that such a position is based on information not in the Bible (true) and therefore, those who incorporate that information into their position on alcoholic beverages are “adding to the Word of God” (he quotes the curse of Rev. 22.18) and are like the Pharisees (his choice of labels).
Besides the obvious non sequiters between his labels and the actual biblical contexts, his choice of those condemning terms is inconsistent. Is it true (as this pastor claimed) that anyone who allows (or seeks) extra-biblical historical information as he interprets Scripture is cursed and Pharisaical? No. I saw the congregation in the crowd and not a single one of those ladies was applying I Cor. 11.3-16 by “just taking what the Bible says without ‘adding’ to it.” In fact, during another part of the sermon, he characterized Christians who have a stricter application than he has as “men wearing suits all the time, our women with doilies on their heads, churning our own butter, reading the King James Version and praying for the Lord to come back because we’re all so miserable!” It is sad to see this pastor backing himself into a corner of blatant inconsistency – all for the sake of providing a “message” that people are comfortable hearing.
The Bible is sufficient. It meets spiritual needs fully without addition or change. Praise God for that! But understanding historical background (even information that’s not printed on the pages of Scripture) is very helpful for weeding out potential wrong interpretations of difficult passages. It is a shame to hear such silly “logic” being used to protect a wrong interpretation from extra-biblical correction.
May God grant all his servants the diligence to study his message thoroughly, the illumination to understand it accurately and the humility to preach it unashamedly!