Wine or Why Not?

The question has been asked, how can drinking be a sin when Jesus turned water into wine?

Yes, Jesus turned water into wine. What do you suppose the alcohol content was of that wine? Wine can have a very low proof, you know. The governor of the feast remarked that it was good wine, and, if he was anything like most of the people I know that consume alcohol, that means it had a high alcoholic content. He may have honestly simply meant that it tasted good, though. Of course, this is God manifest in the flesh we are talking about. He could very easily have made wine that tasted strong, but really wasn’t. Keep in mind also, a couple of cultural things: One, most of their water was just plain dirty. Granted, most of the population of Israel had probably developed immunity to whatever bacteria were prevalent in the river Jordan, but, still. Some have suggested that wine really meant grape juice. I don’t think so, because grape juice needs to be refrigerated. Even modern day grape juice, with all the preservatives they add to it, still needs to be kept cold to keep from spoiling. Of course, the citizens of Ancient Israel would not have understood the idea of lukewarm grape juice attracting insects, which would then leave bacteria in the juice, which, in turn, would make people sick. They also would not have understood that allowing the grape juice to ferment would create an alcohol content that would kill the germs. They would have understood, though, that drinking grape juice often made people sick, while drinking wine almost never did.

The Bible also says that wine is a mocker (Proverbs 20:1): Let’s face it, whether you subscribe to the theory that alcohol causes you to do strange things, or whether it just lowers one’s inhibitions so that people can do what they really wanted to do all along anyway, or maybe just causes enough cranial impairment that things that would normally be obvious bad ideas suddenly seem like flashes of brilliance; let’s face it, people act different when they are drunk. I don’t know anybody that acts better when they are drunk, either. Part of the problem is that almost anybody can take a drink, and the most serious effect that it has is that drink will convince him or her that a second drink will not seriously impair them, either. Of course, two drinks can easily convince one that a third drink is a good idea…

On the other hand, Paul told Timothy to take a little wine, for his stomach's sake (1 Timothy 5:23). In the days before Tums, Rolaids, and Pepto-Bismol, wine was one of a very few things known to settle a stomach. I personally don’t recommend the “medicinal use” of alcohol, because I know that it is more often misused or abused than actually used for medicinal purposes. Besides, in modern days, there really isn’t much excuse. There are a number of things that are considerably more effective.

I think that the best response really comes from Romans 14:21: “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.” For me to tip back a little wine might not (probably would not) send me to Hell, but if you see me imbibing and you are not a Christian, or you are young in the faith--and you have no way of knowing how much I have consumed--my few sips of wine could result in you (or someone like you) to sin grievously. Even if you understand and appreciate that I have had very little, there are many people that believe that if a little is good, then more is better. I will not be a party to that. I am a long-time teetotaler.

Everyone Stumbles

I have blogged before on the subject of none of us being perfect, but I was reminded today that everyone stumbles occasionally. I think that’s interesting, because I have been listening to Natalie Grant’s song, “I Will Not Be Moved.” The chorus of that song says, “I will stumble, I will fall down / But I will not be moved. / I will make mistakes / I will face heartache / But I will not be moved. / On Christ the solid rock I stand / All other ground is sinking sand / I will not be moved.”

Proverbs 24:16 tells us that a righteous man falls seven times, and gets back up, but a foolish man only falls once. Well, okay, I’m paraphrasing somewhat, but the idea is that it isn’t about how many times you fall, it’s about how many times you get back up. When you stop getting back up, that’s when you have a problem.

Of course, part of the process is repentance. Some people think that repentance is simply asking for forgiveness. It’s not. Repentance is like a U-turn: Having come to the realization that one is headed down the wrong road, one turns around and gets back on the right road. Should God forgive someone who isn’t sorry for what they did? If one were sorry for what one has done, wouldn’t one take steps to ensure that it doesn’t happen again? Don’t misunderstand me; I realize that many people make the same mistakes over and over again (been there, done that).

Let’s suppose for a moment that the sin that we are talking about is drunkenness. Our hero (and you won’t often hear me refer to a drunk as a hero) realizes that he has a problem, so he gets rid of all the booze in his house. That’s a good start, but he continues to hang out at bars with his buddies. Most nights, it doesn’t take very long before he doesn’t feel very sociable drinking ginger ale, especially after the third or fourth glass. After several months, he comes to the realization that, although he has “repented” of his drunkenness, he is still getting hammered three or four nights a week. He may feel completely justified in saying that he has repented, but, let’s face it, he hasn’t changed very much. What he hasn’t come to understand, yet, is that the time for him to decide whether or not to have a drink is before he steps into the bar. It’s pretty much inevitable that, if he goes in, he’s going to eventually talk himself into having “just one.” It’s equally inevitable that the one drink will talk him into a second one, and so on.

Now, you may think that I’m down on alcohol. I used drunkenness as an example because I think that we can easily see that progression. Maybe your problem is pornography, and you need to get the internet out of your house, and make sure you aren’t going anywhere that might expose you to your vice. Maybe your problem is soap operas, and you need to get rid of your TV, and arrange your beauty shop appointments later in the day (and, no, I don’t think all soap opera addicts are women, or that all women who are soap opera addicts go to beauty shops; I’m just saying). There’s a scene in “Jungle Fever” where Wesley Snipes’ character, an architect, objects to being assigned a white secretary. His bosses are a little surprised at this show of bigotry, and remind him that they can’t hire and fire based on color, only on qualifications—they would get in hot water with the EEOC. As the movie progresses, though, we find out that it isn’t a problem of bigotry: Snipes’ character knows that he has a weakness for women that are not his color, and he is trying to protect himself and his marriage. That was a show of wisdom on his part, and maybe, if he had been more open with his bosses about why he felt he needed a secretary of color, they might have been able to work something out, or at least made sure that he never wound up working late with her and nobody else around.

My point is, everybody makes mistakes. God forgives mistakes. God can even forgive the same mistake a number of different times. If one makes a mistake and realizes that this circumstance represents a weakness in one’s own spiritual armor, then one needs to take steps to protect oneself in the future. That is part of repentance. On the other hand, if one finds oneself making the same mistake over and over and don’t feel that it indicates a personal weakness, then one might want to consider the possibility that one is related to Cleopatra, because she was the Queen of Denial.

Samson

Samson and Delilah is probably one of the best-known stories in the Old Testament. I mentioned briefly last week, when blogging about the women of the Bible, and pointing out that Delilah was the exception, rather than the rule. Samson was something of an exception, himself. I don’t think there was any hero in the bible quite like Samson.
First of all, the Bible tells us that Samson was a Nazarite. A Nazarite was supposed to be separated unto God. I think most of us know that he wasn’t allowed to have his head shaved. That was part of being a Nazarite. He also wasn’t allowed to imbibe alcohol, or touch a dead body.
Samson’s first choice of women was a Philistine woman. That’s generally a bad idea. Here is a man, that, for religious reasons, has to avoid a lot of different things, and he’s getting married to a woman who isn’t even the same religion. She’s not only not a Nazarite, she’s not even a Jew! There is enough stress in married life without those kinds of differences. In this case, we have a man who has a special calling on his life, married to a woman who would probably like nothing better than to see his religion go away.
Prior to the wedding, Samson killed a young lion in a field. After a few days, he was interested to note that, as the lion’s carcass decayed, some bees nested inside the remains. Samson reached in, and snagged some honey. Now, a case could be made that it was all right for him to be handling a dead lion, because the commandment was not to touch a dead body—implying human remains. Jews in general were not supposed to touch dead beasts that ‘go on all four’ which would seem to include lions.
Then he begins toying with the Philistine guests at his wedding (friends of his prospective in-laws). He asks them a riddle, “Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness,” and told them that if they could figure out what that meant, he would get them each thirty changes of garment, but if they couldn’t, each of them would buy him thirty changes of garment. Well, the Philistines and the Jews didn’t get along very well to start with. Toying with one’s enemy is a bad idea. Perhaps Samson didn’t consider these Philistines his enemy, because his in-laws knew them, but playing games with prospective in-laws isn’t very smart, either. The Philistines started putting pressure on Samson fiancée to find out the riddle, which she of course did. Samson was furious that his betrothed would betray him, and stormed off. That may have been the most intelligent thing he had done thus far in his entire life. But then he came back. Her father had married her to someone else, thinking that Samson didn’t want her any more (a reasonable assumption). Samson tried to take her back anyway, after she betrayed him.
So he decides he wants a different wife. Again he chooses a Philistine woman. He didn’t learn from the first one? By this time, the Philistines have a pretty good idea that Samson is a problem (they’ve already tried to kill him at least once). Not only is he a Jew, but he is a very strong individual, and he is unstable. They never know what he is going to do next. He must have some weakness, though, so they conspired with Delilah to find out what it is.
She asks him the secret to afflicting him, and he makes up some nonsense about binding him with green withs (cords). She tries it, while he is asleep, but it doesn’t work. She asks again. Now some would say that he didn’t even realize that she had tried the withs, and, certainly there is a basis for that belief in that he broke the withs so easily that he might not have even realized that they were there, but, why would she ask again unless she knew he had lied, and how would she know he had lied, unless she had tested it? So, maybe Samson wasn’t really consciously aware that she had attempted to take away his strength, but he should have been. He lied to her three times, and eventually told her the truth. Samson really was thinking impaired. I’m not entirely sure whether he didn’t think through how Delilah knew when he lied, or if didn’t think through what would happen if he told the truth about what could make him weak, when she’s already tried every thing she knows that could possibly have that effect, but, one way or the other, he really should have spent more time thinking about what he was doing before he did it.
We have a bad tendency to think that Delilah was Samson’s downfall. Delilah certainly didn’t help his situation any, but, realistically, Samson’s downfall was Samson. Delilah couldn’t have touched him if he had been doing what he was supposed to be doing. I’m not sure if Samson had just gotten so full of himself that he actually believed that he could do whatever he wanted, and nobody could touch him, or if he had led such a blessed life from his youth up that he just thought God would never leave him. Romans 8:37-38 provides a list of things that could not separate Samson from the love of God; it sounds like an all-encompassing list (but that’s New Testament—Samson lived in the Old Testament; God hasn’t changed), but notice that it never even suggested that Samson couldn’t separate Samson from God. It does make it clear that Delilah could not separate Samson from God, but she could help persuade him to put himself in a situation where God wouldn’t bail him out. Of course, God did eventually give Samson his strength back, but not until the Philistines gave their god, Dagon, credit for bringing down Samson.
Here’s the thing, though, Samson is a lot like most of us. A lot of times, for one reason or another, we start thinking that we can handle this situation, or that problem, on our own. I won’t bother God with this one; he’s busy. This is a no-brainer; I’ll be fine. The ‘no-brainer’ is thinking that you can do anything right without God. Don’t be like Samson

Liquor Is Quicker, But Innovation Is Better

Too bad there wasn't an alcohol shortage in Western Siberia (at least he wasn't driving blind). Nissan has come up with a possible solution (it looks very feasible to me).

Meanwhile, a new theory that fulacht fiadh, in Ireland, may actually be ancient breweries (traditionally, they have been thought of as cooking sites). I'm not sure anyone can actually prove that, one way or the other.

It seems funny to me that Japanese auto manufacturers tend to be more progressive than their American counterparts--building cars with better gas mileage, and frequently better safety features--and the Big Three complain that they just can't compete. How hard is it to plan ahead? We had our first gas shortage in the 70's, and Detroit still hasn't built a car that gets 'good' gas mileage. I understand that part of the problem is that Japanese auto workers work for less money than UAW union members, but by the time they pay to have cars shipped over here and pay import taxes (if they even do that--look around, there are an awful lot of 'Japanese' cars being made right here in the United States. That avoids shipping costs and import taxes, but then they probably have to deal with union wages, the same as Big Three cars made in the US), there can't be much of an advantage (if any--why do you think so many Japanese car companies have set up plants here in the US?). It seems to me that the real problem is that the Big Three have grown complacent: For a lot of years, they only had to compete with each other (I say that, I mean, the Big Three has only been around for about fifty years. Chrysler invented hydraulic brakes in 1957 and changed the face of American car companies forever). Are the American car companies afraid of another Edsel?

And now Chrysler has hired new CEO Bob Nardelli, the man who received a 210 million dollar payout from Home Depot amidst fears that, if allowed to complete his contract as CEO, he would run the company into the ground. Does Chrysler know something that Home Depot didn't? One would hope so. Who knows? Maybe Home Depot's board just didn't understand Nardelli's work ethic; maybe this is the guy that's going to infuse some real innovation into American car manufacturing. I think what Detroit is missing is just the simple philosophy: Look at what people want and need, and work out ways to build it better, and less expensively than your competition, even if your competition stops working out ways to build its product better and cheaper. Isn't that the basic model of competition? When companies work to earn business from competitors, then they win, and, more importantly, consumers win.