Posted on 02/24/2002 3:48:41 AM PST by TomSmedley
James Dobson's crusade against TV ads for booze is misdirected
For years, Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family has been a ministry dedicated to the preservation of the Christian family. In the course of its mission, it has often advocated, in the name of the family, boycotting various television shows, networks and companies, especially Disney. Its latest boycott is of television network NBC and parent company General Electric.1 The reason? NBC is now airing hard liquor ads. Oh, the sinister evil.
After a 50-year voluntary ban on liquor advertisements, NBC has decided to lift the ban and enjoy the show. The ads would begin airing at 8 p.m., central time. Dr. Dobson is "extremely concerned" about this new action, and is convinced that the initial ban "protected kids to some degree at least, from manipulative liquor ads that would entice their young minds and, for that matter, entice older people."
To help think through the "tough" issues of the day, recently Dobson had alongside him his protégé, John Fuller, as well as big government Republican Rep. Frank Wolf from Virginia. Fuller, says Dobson, has "consistently fought for moral values and the family in the Congress," valiantly battling the evils of gambling and porn.
According to the cast of characters, these "manipulative ads" are "another snake in the grass" and the result of "raw, unbridled corporate greed." These greedy corporations, say Dobson and Co., are going to cause a great moral upheaval in our country. Catching a bad case of the slippery slope, Wolf predicted that if NBC continues airing these ads, it will not be long before they are seen "on all the shows" and all the networks, which will lead kids into premarital sex and drunk driving (Whoa! Did I miss something?). Within two years, says Wolf, you'll be seeing these ads at sporting events such as the Olympics with "former ball players" (not current ones?) advertising hard liquor. "I think it will bring about a lot more death, Jim."
Curse that deathly evil bottle. Curse every milliliter of it.
"Even though the ban is voluntary," says Fuller, "I've got a teen and a pre-teen son at home, and this makes me angry because this is obviously motivated by corporate greed, a desire to put the money in, without any regard to the consequences to the viewers and the people who are affected by those who drink that hard liquor."
There's a little problem in the logic here. Focus on the Family apparently believes that ads which say "Drink Responsibly"at least those are the only ones that I've seen on NBC so farare going to cause your children to have sex and die. Whoa, Dobson, whoa. What about parental responsibility and education of children? What about parents teaching their kids right and wrong?
Whatever happened to focusing on your family liquor cabinet? After all, mine is quite all right.
Dobson thinks that the real solution to all our liquor ad problems is to boycott General Electric and NBC. God-fearing families should "bombard NBC and GE with telephone calls absolutely bury them in complaints." Yeah, and tell 'em Jesus sent ya when you call.
To most outsiders, Christians are the folks who don't drink, don't cuss, and don't have much fun. Oh yeah, and did I mention Christians don't drink? It's hard enough being a Christian in America with the stands that the Bible demands we make. But by the grace of God, I can handle that. If God said it, well bummer if I take heat for it.
The problem I have is when we start making our little clubhouse rules of all our taboos and things that we don't do, even if Scripture nowhere denounces the things that we do. We're known as the goody guys who don't do this and don't do that, yet how many outsiders can tell us what Christians really stand for? And even if they could say that, how many outsiders can say they've ever seen us live what we stand for?
Instead of rallying the troops for battle, Dobson's listeners should be encouraged to instruct their children in thinking biblically about all of life, including alcohol and its proper use. Children should be taught both the Bible's warnings about alcohol abuse and the its praise of alcohol. Employing a Christian worldview in all of life is much more important than focusing on why bumming bottled booze is bad.
But we'd rather spend our time on the phone with a minimum wage employee of General Electricwho couldn't care less about the so-called evils of the bottlethan spend our time with our kids instructing them to think biblically.
In his critique of the Religious Right, Cal Thomas rightly notes, "Only God has all the truth. To the extent that we quote him accurately, we are loaned this truth. But when we begin adding things to his agenda, we diminish his truth and are onto something else entirely."2 Once again, Dobson thinks he has God's agenda figured out, and a million fingers will be dialing GE and NBC demanding a removal of these inherently evil ads.
But how can the ads be inherently evil if the actual product is not?
As Ken Gentry notes, "the biblical record frequently and clearly speaks of alcoholic beverages as good gifts from God for man's enjoyment."3 In Deuteronomy 14:22-26, the people of Israel were instructed to set aside a tithe for celebration and rejoicing. There, God tells them to "spend the money for whatever [their] heart desires, for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink." This, says Moses, is to be done rejoicing with the whole household, and "in the presence of the LORD your God." Teaching children the value of doing all things in the presence of God is going to go much farther in the long run than any boycotts ever will.
"Here comes another, uhh, you know, problem for parents to deal with," says Dobson.
"Train up a child, uhh, you know, and he will not depart from it," says God.
Notes
1. Focus on the Family Radio Broadcast, Jan. 31, 2002.
2. Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson, Blinded by Might: Why the Religious Right Can't Save America. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 124.
3. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., God Gave Wine (Lincoln: Oakdown, 2001), 147. See Gentry's helpful discussion on the biblical term for "strong drink," 59-62. Also, check out the website.
I am saying that more drinking doesn't need to mean more drunks or more alcoholics. That is as obvious as the light of day. You are evading and arguing on (at best) unproven premises.
Would YOU not agree that virtually all "problem drinkers" are already drinking? They need no ads to move them to the bar or to the bottle. It's the discretionary drinkers who are most influenced by advertising.
Do not look at wine [yayin] when it is red, when it sparles in the cup and goes down smoothly. At the last it bites like a serpent and stings like an adder. Prov. 23:31-32This verse does not teach moderate drinking. This verse prohibits even looking at wine!
Wine [yayin] is a mocker, strong drink a brawler; and whoever is led astray by it is not wise. Prov. 20:1
Moreover, wine [yayin] is treacherous; the arrogant man shall not abide. Hab. 2:5
And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit. Eph. 5:18
Previous Topic | Next Topic |
1. The juice of the grape.Notice that the first definition makes no reference to the fermentation of the juice.
2. A liquor extracted from other fruits besides the grape.
3. The vapours of wine, as wine disturbs his reason.
Lingua Britannica Reformata or A New English Dictionary
He therefore said that in his sleep he saw three clusters of grapes hanging upon three branches of a vine, large already, and ripe for gathering; and that he squeezed them into a cup which the king held in his hand and when he had strained the wine he gave it to the king to drink... Thou sayest that tho didst squeeze this wine from three clusters of grapes... (page 48)
Though called wine [oinos], it has not the effect of wine, for it does taste like wine and does not intoxicate like ordinary wine. (388.b.9-13)Aristotle referred to the unfermented juice as oinos and clearly states that it neither tasted like nor was intoxicating like ordinary wine.
Neither is new wine put into old wineskins; if it is, the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins are destroyed; but new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved. Matt. 9:17.It was customary in Jesus' time to put new wine into new wineskins to protect them both. This could not possibly be fermented wine, because new wineskins, no matter how strong, could not resist the pressures caused by fermentation. The Encyclopedia Biblica says,
It is impossible that the must could ever have been put into skins to undergo the whole process of fermentation, as is usually stated, the action of the gas given off in the earlier stages of the process being much too violent for any skins to withstand.The only plausible explanation of Matthew 9:17 is that fresh juice was strained, boiled, and then placed immediately into the new wine skins which were made as air-tight as possible to prevent fermentation. New skins were used to insure the absence of any any fermentation-causing substances which may be present in the old skins.
Fresh wine before fermenting was called yayin mi gat (wine of the vat). The ordinary wine was of the current vintage. The vintage of the previous year was called yayin yashan (old wine). The third year's vintage was yayin meyushshan (very old wine). (Vol. 12, p. 533)The Jewish Encyclopedia reveals that yayin was used to refer to a variety of grape products, including the newly pressed "wine before fermenting."
Previous Topic | Next Topic |
We [in the 20th century] use the phrase to denote that it is good in proportion to its strength, and power to intoxicate. But no such sense is to be attached to the word here. (Notes on the New Testament, Vol. 2, p. 197)In the Roman world of the New Testament the best wines were those whose alcoholic potency had been removed by boiling or filtration. For example, Pliny wrote that,
Wines are most beneficial when all their potency has been removed by the strainer. Natural History, 23,24Plutarch says that wine is "much more pleasant to drink" when it
neither inflames the brain nor infests the mind or passions. Symposiac 8, 7The wine which Jesus created was high-quality not because of its alcoholic content, but because it was new, fresh, and delicious.
In John 2:10 we find the expression "well drunk" [methusthosin], which some claim indicates intoxication. Evidence from the Septuagint (for example, Gen. 43:34) reveals that this phrase can also be used to describe drinking to the point of satiation, not intoxication. This meaning is supported in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible which renders the phrase "when men have drunk freely." There is further evidence in the Jewish Talmud that drinking alcoholic wine was forbidden to the accompaniment of musical instruments in festive occasions such as weddings (Sotah 48a; also Mishna Sotah 9,11).
This leads us to ask several questions:
The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified in her children. Matt. 11:19Is this unmistakable proof that Jesus drank alcoholic wine? To begin with, the context of this verse compares Jesus' life style with John the Baptist who "came neither eating nor drinking" Matt. 11:18. The fact that Jesus "came eating and drinking" does not so much indicate a difference in diet, as it does a difference in their social lifestyles. John's life was a life of isolation in the wilderness. Jesus' life style was entirely different. He freely associated socially with all groups of society. The emphasis in the text is on a difference in lifestyle. In addition, John, being a Nazarite (Luke 1:15), was forbidden to drink wine, or any grape product (Num. 6:1-4). Jesus, who was not a Nazarite, was under no such restriction.
There is no evidence that the charge of Jesus being a "winebibber" was valid. The fact that Jesus came "drinking" does not prove that His "drinking" included alcoholic beverages. It could just as well refer to the drinking of grape juice. We should be careful in taking the words of Jesus' critics, who labeled Him a "winebibber", as the truth. Remember that His critics also said He was possessed by a demon (John 7:20; 8:48).
He therefore said that in his sleep he saw three clusters of grapes hanging upon three branches of a vine...and that he squeezed them into a cup which the king held in his hands; and when he had strained the wine, he gave it to the king to drink. (p. 48)In intrepretting the dream Joseph told the cupbearer to expect to be realeased because,
God bestows the fruit of the vine upon men for good; which wine is poured out to him and is a pledge of fidelity and mutual confidence among men. (p. 48)Notice two points:
Louis Ginzberb (1873-1941), a distinguished Talmudic scholar, who for nearly forty years was chairman of the Talmudic and Rabbinic Department at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America writes in the Jewish Encyclopedia:
According to the synoptic gospels, it would appear that on the Thursday evening of the last week of His life Jesus with His disciples entered Jerusalem in order to eat the Passover meal with them in the sacred city; if so, the wafer and the wine of the mass or the communion service then instituted by Him as a memorial would be the unleavened bread and the unfermented wine of the Seder service. (Vol. 5. p. 165)
Jesus used unfermented grape juice in the last supper in obedience to the Mosaic law which required the absence of all fermented articles during the Passover feast. The law forbade the use and presence in the house of seor (Ex. 12:15), which means leven, yeast, or any other matter capable of producing fermentation. For seven days the Jews were to partake of hametz, which is translated "unleavened bread" (Ex. 13:6-7). The word "bread" is not in the text, thus a more accurate translation would be "unfermented things."
The most important reason to believe that unfermented grape juice was used at the last supper is the symbolism of the wine of the new covenant. Could Christ have offered a cup of intoxicating, brain-numbing alcohol to symbolize His sinless, redeeming blood? Could the blood of Jesus, who had not one taint of corruption in Him (Acts 13:37; 1 Pet. 1:18,19), be rightly represented by wine which was corrupted by the decay of fermentation? Christ admonished all Christians to partake of the cup. According to the Talmud, each person at the Passover was supplied with at least four cups of wine. If this was alcoholic wine, this was a sufficient quantity to make anyone drunk. To imagine that Christ wanted men, women, and children to become intoxicated during the sacred communion service is blasphemy. Clearly, the weight of the evidence shows that the communion wine was unfermented grape juice.
Previous Topic | Next Topic |
Wine
|
Many people have been mislead by ignorance and misunderstanding of the word 'wine' in the Bible. Unbelievers and drinkers support themselves that "it is in the Bible" while christians do not really know "what is in the Bible" is not for liquor but against it. Use the Online Bible for immediate reference to the verses |
KeralaBrethren.net
|
|
Good point. Interesting. And Jesus said it was "expedient" for us that He depart this venue, so that the Holy Spirit could take a bow. Knowing God's presence within us is more intimate than hanging around with the Incarnate Word.
(Of course, it's also easier to IGNORE God's presence within us. Jesus was an "in-your-face" type of character.)
Wouldn't have been nice if someone had mentioned the creepy crawlies, and that they could be killed by boiling the water? A lot easier and faster than making wine?
If kids are taught to drink and the mystery is removed, they are less likely to overindulge or sneak booze from the liquor cabinet. A little wine with meals sometimes, a sip of beer or a taste of a mixed drink. At least that's the way it works in my home.
First of all the question was are we showing the world the good side of the Church? Dobson has done that by his many years of service as a counselor and through his counseling ministry "Focus on the Family." I listed many of the areas where his ministry helps people. I didn't say that his ministry was perfect, or that I agreed with all his positons. I just said that his years of helping people has presented the Church in a positive light.
You called his actions "token service to the Gospel". But you didn't explain what you mean? What is your standard of a good ministry? I am forced to assume that you expect Dobson to be an evangelist? Do you think that the only good ministries are evangelistic? (I would agree that evangelism is the most important mission of the Church. But I would not attack other Christians because they are called to charity work, or teaching, etc.)
Are all the other ministries giving "token service to the Gospel" because they focus on other needs? Is it wrong for a ministry to focus on meeting a specific need, other than evangelism? For example, we have pro-life ministries whose main focus is providing an alternative to abortion. Would you say that they are only giving token servie to the gospel, because their main focus is not evangelism? Or would you say that they are demonstrating the Gospel, by showing their love for the unborn?
You accused Dobson of making the Gospel a secondary affair. How? What would you expect from him? Dobson is not an evangelist, he has never claimed to be an evangelist. He's not even a minister. He is a layman, a counselor. He has a counseling ministry. He is primarily trying to help Christians. He does support evangelists, so that they can do the evangelism. For example, Tony Evans has thanked Dobson for his support.
I went to oneplace.com to see the topics of Dobson's radio show. In the past 2 weeks he has had some shows dealing with emotional needs. But he had shows dealing with prayer, the old testament, a salvation testamony, how to raise Godly boys, homosexuality, trusting God, and the need for Christians to engage the culture. It would seem that he is addressing some important topics on his show.
What I didn't understand was how you could read my statement that advertising will attract new customers and increase sales. And then accuse me of saying that the liquor companies wanted to harm people through alcohol abuse.
I am saying that more drinking doesn't need to mean more drunks or more alcoholics. That is as obvious as the light of day. You are evading and arguing on (at best) unproven premises.
Would YOU not agree that virtually all "problem drinkers" are already drinking? They need no ads to move them to the bar or to the bottle. It's the discretionary drinkers who are most influenced by advertising.
Again you seem to think that I am talking about current drinkers increasing their consumption, switching their brand of liquor, or beer drinkers stepping up to hard liquor. I'm not.
I'm talking about the ads attracting new customers. People that don't currently drink. The article referred to Dobson expressing concern that the ads would influence childrens/teens attitude toward drinking. At the very least, Don't you agree that in future generations there will be some problem drinkers?
And no I don't agree that all problem drinkers are currently drinking. Every problem drinker had to take that first drink. There are many alcoholics who have avoided a drinking problem by never taking that first drink.
Mr. Christ? Mr. Jesus Christ? This is the BATF. You have been reportedly been making illegal beverages for the purpose of consumption and distribution. We have you surrounded, and we have a sealed warrant to search your entire dominion. Drop the fishes and loaves and come out with your hands up.
Well we know what James Dobson stands for. He's spent his entire life trying to help parents raise their children, and to help couples stay together. He's led efforts to help seniors, teenagers, and children. He founded the Family Research Council, a leading thinktank for the conservative movement. And he's helped people overcome their addictions. Isn't that funny, an organization concerned about addictions, is also concerned about increasing liquor sales. Who would have suspected it? Say jamey what are you for?
Do we really know what James Dobson stands for? He says to focus on the family, but he tends to focus on politics. I'll tell you what I hear Dobson standing AGAINST: pornography, homosexuality, gambling, "greedy corporations," hard liquor ads, the Simpsons, and many other things.
If you want to know what I stand for, visit my websites at www.EnjoyingGod.org and take a look.
Certainly, if one is to be consistent, a person can't stand for something without standing against its opposite. But Christians tend to spend so much time coming against things that most cannot say what we are for. People know "good Christians" don't drink, smoke, chew, dance, or cuss....but do they know what we DO? And do they know what we believe?
Jamey
Nevertheless, he is misguided on this matter.
Jamey
Thanks for responding. However I am a little troubled. You started by saying that people have an impression that Christians are just against things, but not for anything.
It is one thing for people to think that, it is quite another for it to be true. Our first concern is not what people think of us, but being faithful to do God's Will. Which does includes both encourage people to do good Godly things, as well as encouraging them to avoid evil worldly things.
With Dobson, we have a man who has had great success helping people. His ministry has encourage people to be good parents, spouses, and citizens. It seems that you are reluctant to give Dobson credit for what he has done. Dobson established a counseling ministry which has helped millions of people all over the world. Don't you consider helping people find God's will, be better parents and spouses, being for something?
You mention that Dobson tends to focus on politics. Keep in mind that Dobson has a counseling ministry helping people with life issues. With the Gov't controling and regulating more and more of our lives, they are becoming a factor that must be addressed. For example if you want to raise Godly children then you will have to deal with the Gov't sex education in your child's school. As Gov't intrudes into our lives, then we have a need to know how to respond. You shouldn't blame dobson for address the need. Secondly is Dobson too focused on politics? I went to Dobson's website. It lists 18 bestselling books that Dobson has written. Not one is political. They are about life issues, i.e. being a good parent or spouse, trusting God. If Dobson was too political wouldn't most of those books be about politics? I then went to oneplace.com to see what the show topics were for the past month. Of the 20 shows listed maybe 4 were political. Of those 4, 2 were a discussion of western culture with Buchanan, 1 was on how Christians need to engage the culture. And one didn't say what it was about. The other shows dealt with religious topics, or emotional ones i.e. stress. (For the record I consider homosexuality a religious topic. although if we ignore the politics, teaching the Biblical view of homosexuality might soon be considered a hate crime.)
You say that if we are against something then we are for the opposite. You alsosay that you hear Dobson standing against pornography and homosexuality.(as if that was a bad thing). So if Dobson is against the abuse of Sex. Then doesn't it follow that Dobson is for good sex? And if you consider his books on marriage, Couldn't it mean that Dobson is for Great Sex?
But Christians tend to spend so much time coming against things that most cannot say what we are for. People know "good Christians" don't drink, smoke, chew, dance, or cuss....but do they know what we DO? And do they know what we believe?
Personally I don't see that at all. I think the emphasis today is too much on feeling good(i.e. felt needs). Sermons on overcoming the burden of life. I think that it is extremely rare to hear a sermon on the evils of gambling, or why people shouldn't smoke. Likewise it is becoming rare to hear sermons on serious doctrine.
I'll let you have the last word on this topic. I never intended to give it this much attention. Best Wishes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.