# I'm a glutton but at least I'm not a drunkard...



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 1, 2007)

> Prov 23:20-21
> Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh: For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty:
> and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.


I've been reflecting lately on the hypocrisy that many Evangelicals have toward alchohol consumption compared to overindulgence in eating. Manmade doctrine in many evangelical circles condemns any and all alchohol consumption while virtually ignoring or revelling in the sin of gluttony. The Scriptures link drunkenness and gluttony together as virtually identical sins.

What is sad about this issue is that those who preach complete abstinence are missing the whole point of the Scriptures concerning these things. They complete ignore Paul in Collosians 2:


> 20Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
> 
> 21(Touch not; taste not; handle not;
> 
> 22Which all are to perish with the using; ) after the commandments and doctrines of men?



They turn alchohol into something that ought not to be touched where the Scriptures would only condemn its wanton overindulgence.

At the same time, however, about 30-40% (or more) of the American Church are gluttons reflecting the general population. It's virtually a maxim of Churches to say that "...we sure know how to eat in this Church...." I've heard that statement from Independents, Presbyterians, and Baptists - all from the pastors of the Churches.

Like most things these days, everything is turned on its head. The majority of "Evangelicals" get bent out of shape if man consumes alchohol in moderation (something that God has given to man to bless him) but then revel in a sin that God has equated with drunkeness.

The blindspot on this issue is simply baffling.


----------



## Herald (Jan 1, 2007)

> The blindspot on this issue is simply baffling.



Concur. If the same enemies of drinking alcohol turned on overeating I daresay that Weight Watchers would be a stock to invest in. 

I have been guilty of over indulgence of food, not alcohol. This is an area of needed repentance for me. Rich, thank you for calling attention to it.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Jan 1, 2007)

I agree, for years I have pretty much equated the two sins. They both could come under the heading of glutony. 

That's not to say that a church group cannot upon occasion have a "feast" so to speak.

Drunkeness and Glutony are paterns of behaviour. We all should be on guard against both. I'm sure there are times when all of us have overindulged and wish we hadn't.

Grace and Peace.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jan 1, 2007)

Quit posting my sins for everyone to see!


----------



## blhowes (Jan 1, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I've been reflecting lately on the hypocrisy that many Evangelicals have toward alchohol consumption compared to overindulgence in eating. Manmade doctrine in many evangelical circles condemns any and all alchohol consumption while virtually ignoring or revelling in the sin of gluttony. The Scriptures link drunkenness and gluttony together as virtually identical sins.


Rich,
I've been thinking about this lately as well. Have you or others ever had any experiences talking with people who advocate obstinance from drinking any kind of alcohol, in light of the connection that's made between drunkenness and gluttonly? I'm curious what their Biblical response would be. The reasoning I've always heard is that since drunkenness is a sin, a believer would want to stay as far away from the alcohol as possible - thus abstinance from drinking any alcohol. 

...Since gluttony is also a sin, it would make sense to stay as far away from food as possible. I wonder what their comeback is.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jan 1, 2007)

Rich I’m with you 100%.

Here are some of the more subtle arguments they’ll raise though: eating is necessary while alcohol is not. What’s the reply? Simple, God gives good things to be enjoyed. Whooooaaa! Enjoy wine or beer, that sounds like drunken revelry to me! They miss this point. Why? Because fundamentally their god is a god of works, its old school monkery in a new package. There’s nothing wrong with relaxing drink or even joy. 

There’s a great movie if you can find it that really shows this point called “Babet’s Feast”. It’s a foreign film but it is EXCELLENT in pointing out the subtle invasion of the legal binding. The three main characters are Babett (a kind of Christ figure), a daughter Phillipi (as in Phillip. Melancthon) and Martina (M. Luther of course). It is a fabulous movie on the freeing power of the grace of Christ and the General’s toast/speech at the end is superb! In the film the town is beset by years of a very subtle legal preaching and life style. At length many fall away, they begin back biting and all is gray and dead, depressing – but they continue to trudge onward and serve. Later, Babette, this mysterious French woman comes along and serves them from an unknown benefactor. Toward the end she comes into some money and uses it ALL to prepare a feast, including much wine of the highest quality. They, the town, agree to it. But are later having second thoughts as they see her preparations coming in. They have dreams and thoughts that it is the devil come to deceive them. Mean while they continue to hate each other and back bite privately. After engaging in the meal and the wine is poured they begin to open up at this lavish feast of excellent food and wine. The wine begins to bring joy and they begin apologizing to each other and hugging each other, then the General’s speech. That’s $0.02 synopsis and doesn’t do the movie justice, but you should check it out if you can find it. We had to buy it to see it. I believe it was produced in the 80s.

ON a related issue to your post. CS Lewis most excellently points out that there are two types of gluttons, a kind of “dry” glutton and a kind of “wet” glutton. The dry one is more like a skinny health conscious person, while the wet one is the overt visual glutton. Lewis’ point is that both are gluttons by sin, but the dry glutton is socially acceptable and beloved while the wet glutton is despised in the eyes of society. This reality is NOT hard to imagine, just ask anyone that has struggled with weight issues. Lewis points out that the dry glutton is actually worse an addict than the wet glutton, but is perceived as being free from the sin of the wet glutton. Yet, both are truly addicted to the same thing, namely food and as a way to life, one positively the other negatively. The dry glutton would be like the Pharisee or religionist, while the wet glutton more like the irreligious open sinner. Both are sinners, but it is the wet glutton despised most by polite and religious society and the dry glutton is lauded and praised for their “righteousness”. Yet, the dry glutton is in the most danger for the very fact they are addicted to themselves and it is viewed by the eyes of men as “good”. It brings to mind Luther’s first thesis in his Heidelberg Disputation, “The Law of God the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot help a man toward this end, in fact it hinders him”. Or as Jesus said the tax collectors and sinners will see the Kingdom of God before the religiously pious of the time. Yet, the dry glutton will be the most evil in their abstaining by back biting and condemning others.

How does this relate to alcohol? Gluttony is similar to alcoholism. There are in fact wet and dry alcoholics. The wet ones are, well, those obviously addicted to it. The dry ones, the teetotalers. Not those who simply don’t like it, but the real teetotalers that attach a religious significance to why they do not partake. They are actually MORE addicted to alcohol than those who drink it in the streets. Yet again polite religious society hates the wineo and lauds the primpy little ole religious person that never lets the “devil’s brew” touch their lips. Again, the dry drunk will be the most evil in their abstaining by back biting and condemning others who do. I’ve seen this with MANY high profile “theologians” of our day, they become quite vicious when backed into a corner over their false religious drinking ideas. Which is what ALWAYS happens when we think we are religiously, legally doing something better than another in the ‘eyes of god’, we think.


Ldh


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 1, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I've been reflecting lately on the hypocrisy that many Evangelicals have toward alchohol consumption compared to overindulgence in eating. Manmade doctrine in many evangelical circles condemns any and all alchohol consumption while virtually ignoring or revelling in the sin of gluttony. The Scriptures link drunkenness and gluttony together as virtually identical sins.
> 
> What is sad about this issue is that those who preach complete abstinence are missing the whole point of the Scriptures concerning these things. They complete ignore Paul in Collosians 2:
> 
> ...



Rich,
I'm with you on what you're trying to convey; in many ways we are hypoctrites. 

As Paul M. once said, "Sin makes ya stupid!" Gluttony has degrees. Not to say we are not glutonious here in the states, we are. Just come with Tina and I any Friday night for sushi. Based upon the availability here, we look like gluttons for sure. How much is too much?

After searching, I wonder if gluttony is an actual sin??? Specifically, Is it possible that the RC's are correct; it is secondary to the sin of coveting. 

The term is used twice in the NT

Matthew 11:16-19 16 "To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others: 17 "'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.' 18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." 'But wisdom is proved right by her actions." 

and twice in the old. 

Deuteronomy 21:20 20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

Of course the RC's speak of it in their catechism under "Proliferation of Sin".
Specifically # 1866.

Kittels does not list it in his works. Interesting that it is not there???

Zodhiates has it....overindulgence of food (something to that effect).

Bible works states:

5314 fa,goj phagos {***'-os} 
Meaning: 1) a voracious man, a glutton 
Origin: from 5315;; n m
Usage: AV - gluttonous 2; 2


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 1, 2007)

blhowes said:


> Rich,
> I've been thinking about this lately as well. Have you or others ever had any experiences talking with people who advocate obstinance from drinking any kind of alcohol...



Yes, many folks who argue for abstinance do often exhibit obstinance!


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 1, 2007)

Seriously, though, the arguments that I've heard usually center on two things - condemnations of drunkenness, followed by Welch-style (or Dobson-style, more recently) arguments that wine in the days of Jesus wasn't really very high in alcohol content (something that cannot at all be substantiated, either from the Biblical text or otherwise).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 1, 2007)

By the way, I'm not arguing against Church potlucks but overindulgence occurs at them. I think if you leave feeling like you've eaten too much then you've probably overindulged.

Personally, I have a much bigger problem with the sin of gluttony then I do with drinking too much. I overeat all the time. I get away with it because I work out so much.

Funny story: One of the women at my Church was sharing that she was in the hospital because she had fallen and hit her head very hard earlier in the week and was having headaches. She is an American here teaching at a Japanese school in town so she went to a Japanese doctor. After examining the X-Ray the doctor told her through an interpreter:
"Your head is fine but you are too fat."
The interpreter was a bit embarrassed and told her that she thought he meant to say something else.
The women replied: "No, he didn't."
The interpreter checked and the doctor said: "I meant what I said."

He went on to remark that Americans are fat because food is so cheap in America. Very true. We also drive everywhere while the Japanese walk most places. The first thing that struck me when I returned to the U.S. was how fat everyone seemed to me. Especially on the airplane, it seemed like it was full of fat people.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 1, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> By the way, I'm not arguing against Church potlucks but overindulgence occurs at them. I think if you leave feeling like you've eaten too much then you've probably overindulged.



Eeeerrrrp.... Yeah. I've been there, I've done that. Usually it's the deer jerky and pheasant soup (seriously) that does me in.


----------



## MW (Jan 1, 2007)

I agree that the two should be considered hand in hand with respect to personal moderation. However, alcoholic consumption carries with it numerous abuses which society clearly recognises, and has taken measures to prevent. If a Christian chooses to abstain from alcoholic consumption for the purpose of providing a good example, it would not fall under the category of legalistic prohibitions mentioned by the apostle Paul. The apostle's words have reference to uncommanded ritual and will-worship, not to lifestyle choices.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jan 1, 2007)

> arguments that wine in the days of Jesus wasn't really very high in alcohol content[\quote]
> 
> Neither can science support this folly.


----------



## puritan lad (Jan 1, 2007)

Can I blame my holiday gluttony on my Grandmother? It's her fault. She cooks too good.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 1, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> I agree that the two should be considered hand in hand with respect to personal moderation. However, alcoholic consumption carries with it numerous abuses which society clearly recognises, and has taken measures to prevent. If a Christian chooses to abstain from alcoholic consumption for the purpose of providing a good example, it would not fall under the category of legalistic prohibitions mentioned by the apostle Paul. The apostle's words have reference to uncommanded ritual and will-worship, not to lifestyle choices.



I agree that there is nothing wrong with abstinence as a personal lifestyle choice. My problem is those who make abstinence a _requirement_ for Christians while completely ignoring the prohibition against drunkeness _and_ gluttony.

Also, an example of a society that had a problem with alcohol abuse is the nation of Israel given God's warning to those who had hangovers and got into brawls due to its excess. There has never been a culture that did not have a problem with alcohol abuse.


----------



## MW (Jan 1, 2007)

Well noted, Rich. Substance abuse is also a problem. The legislature prohibits the sale and use of various substances. Why may not the legislature do the same with alcohol if it becomes an uncontrollable problem?


----------



## blhowes (Jan 1, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> Yes, many folks who argue for abstinance do often exhibit obstinance!


oops


----------



## turmeric (Jan 1, 2007)

Hi, I'm Meg, I'm a glutton! So far it doesn't extend to alcohol, if it did, I'd probably be diabetic.

Why do we do this?


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 1, 2007)

I often wondered how gluttony became one of the "seven deadly sins". As Scott pointed out, it is not explicitly stated in scripture as a sin, although implicitly we can deduce that it is. Many other sins are stressed much more than this, yet this is one of the infamous seven.


----------



## blhowes (Jan 1, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> Seriously, though, the arguments that I've heard usually center on two things - condemnations of drunkenness, followed by Welch-style (or Dobson-style, more recently) arguments that wine in the days of Jesus wasn't really very high in alcohol content (something that cannot at all be substantiated, either from the Biblical text or otherwise).


Yeah, I've heard that too. "Drinking alcohol is a sin, Jesus never sinned, therefore the wine was non-alcoholic".

Luk 7:34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' 

...a drunkard...with grape juice?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 1, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Well noted, Rich. Substance abuse is also a problem. The legislature prohibits the sale and use of various substances. Why may not the legislature do the same with alcohol if it becomes an uncontrollable problem?



I assume you're familiar with the 18th and 21st Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 1, 2007)

blhowes said:


> Yeah, I've heard that too. "Drinking alcohol is a sin, Jesus never sinned, therefore the wine was non-alcoholic".
> 
> Luk 7:34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'
> 
> ...a drunkard...with grape juice?



Maybe that was the Hebrew word for a sugar high!


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 1, 2007)

turmeric said:


> Hi, I'm Meg, I'm a glutton! So far it doesn't extend to alcohol, if it did, I'd probably be diabetic.
> 
> Why do we do this?



I don't get this.

Perhaps I ate too much and am thus sluggush in my thoughts tonight


----------



## turmeric (Jan 1, 2007)

blhowes said:


> Luk 7:34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'
> 
> ...a drunkard...with grape juice?



Man, those guys were legalistic!


----------



## blhowes (Jan 1, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Maybe that was the Hebrew word for a sugar high!


That's the missing piece of the puzzle. It all makes sense now. Thanks.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jan 1, 2007)

It is well documented how US prohibition caused more outlawed activities and increased substance abuse of alcohol. That’s the WHOLE fallacy of cause and effect perceived by many concerning alcohol. Under Puritan days alcohol was viewed as a gift from God, the tavern was a family and community gathering house, abuse was from the devil and dealt with in the family/community structure. But as this changed over the years legislation from on high came down fueled by prohibitionist “do gooders” with quite evil and vitriol filled language about those who drank AT ALL. The Klan was almost single handedly resurrected for this very movement, not mention the Masons and many other quasi-religious groups from the south where “wet/dry” communities still exist from this burn over of false religion. 

As the issue of alcohol was moved from the familial/communal setting to a prohibition setting then arose the back alley “speak easies” and similar such “joints”, which of course gave rise to prostitution and gambling. This actually, prohibition, promoted hidden drinking, binge drinking and men drinking in isolation away from their families and social structures that were “guard rails”. So, hidden abuse increased and did crime. This led to the rising of crime and murder that heretofore did not exist, ala Capone, et. Alii.

Ldh


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 1, 2007)

Okay, since it's on the theme... here's a picture of one of the wine glasses my wife and I bought (without opening the box, mind you!) after trading in a gift that was actually useful, hoping to get glasses more appropriate to drink from than our juice glasses.

Look what happened!


----------



## turmeric (Jan 1, 2007)

You could use that for a fishbowl.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 1, 2007)

Larry Hughes said:


> It is well documented how US prohibition caused more outlawed activities and increased substance abuse of alcohol. That’s the WHOLE fallacy of cause and effect perceived by many concerning alcohol. Under Puritan days alcohol was viewed as a gift from God, the tavern was a family and community gathering house, abuse was from the devil and dealt with in the family/community structure. But as this changed over the years legislation from on high came down fueled by prohibitionist “do gooders” with quite evil and vitriol filled language about those who drank AT ALL. The Klan was almost single handedly resurrected for this very movement, not mention the Masons and many other quasi-religious groups from the south where “wet/dry” communities still exist from this burn over of false religion.
> 
> As the issue of alcohol was moved from the familial/communal setting to a prohibition setting then arose the back alley “speak easies” and similar such “joints”, which of course gave rise to prostitution and gambling. This actually, prohibition, promoted hidden drinking, binge drinking and men drinking in isolation away from their families and social structures that were “guard rails”. So, hidden abuse increased and did crime. This led to the rising of crime and murder that heretofore did not exist, ala Capone, et. Alii.
> 
> Ldh



The religious groups with the highest incidence of alchohol abuse are the Mormons and Southern Baptists. The Law never provides the power to obey that which it commands.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jan 1, 2007)

This might help. The size is not so to be filled to the brim, but the size and shape that matters. So as to allow the wine, particularly red wines, to "breath", oxidize is the real term. One wants red wines to oxidize before drinking to bring out the flavor as opposed to whites in which the flavor is needing to be retained. The breathing or oxidation takes the edge off of the strong tannins in red wine that can be over powering in red wines, particularly certain grape types. Typically white wine glasses are smaller with a lesser appreture because one wants to avoid "oxidation" of a white, the reverse. It's also why reds are typically served at closer to room temperature and whites at around 55 F or there abouts. Size, appreture and surface area of the glass are all designed to inhibit or promote oxidation depending upon the wine.

It's hard to say from the picture but that looks more like a brandy glass, which would be for "swashing" and aiding the oxidation (breathing) process.

Me, I'm too poor, I keep generic sized wine glasses around, you'll just have to wing it at my house, maybe use a straw to blow some bubbles in it for oxidation!!

At least its better than Calvin's day when they corked the wine with oily rags!


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jan 1, 2007)

> highest incidence of alchohol abuse are the Mormons and Southern Baptists[\quote]
> 
> I can affirm that first hand and in family on both my wife's and my own, that is the SB, and its variants and Methodist in that stat!


----------



## bob (Jan 1, 2007)

How do you define gluttony? I don't mean to come accross as asking a silly question, but it seems that in the church these days there are a myriad of definitions that are given.

For the skinny guys that eat rice cakes and work out, the definition of gluttony is the guy who doesn't work out and enjoys a hearty breakfast and goes up to the potluck table for seconds and is 20 pounds "overweight."

The 20 pound overweight guy usually looks at the 275 pounder and starts thinking about gluttony.

It would seem to me that gluttony and drunkeness are sinful in that they are the opposite actions of temperance and self control, both which are fruits of the Spirit of God. Sin is not to have dominion over us, so to show an inability to pull away from the table and to put the cork back on the bottle is in reality to deny the effect and power of the gospel.

There is no question that obesity is a great problem in America. Is obesity necessarily tied to gluttony? Even as there are those within the church that insist on prohibiting the use of alcohol, there are also those within the church that see a demon in coffee, chocolate, fat, and angel food cake. They also like to poke even the slightly round belly of their brethren and urge them to confess their sin of gluttony. 

I don't think that gluttony must necessarily come into play once we are five pounds removed from the recommended weight chart or occasionally like to stuff ourselves during a celebratory feast. I think the sin comes when we no longer have the ability to control our passions and begin to eat in a riotous and excessive manner.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 1, 2007)

Larry Hughes said:


> This might help. The size is not so to be filled to the brim, but the size and shape that matters. So as to allow the wine, particularly red wines, to "breath", oxidize is the real term. One wants red wines to oxidize before drinking to bring out the flavor as opposed to whites in which the flavor is needing to be retained. The breathing or oxidation takes the edge off of the strong tannins in red wine that can be over powering in red wines, particularly certain grape types. Typically white wine glasses are smaller with a lesser appreture because one wants to avoid "oxidation" of a white, the reverse. It's also why reds are typically served at closer to room temperature and whites at around 55 F or there abouts. Size, appreture and surface area of the glass are all designed to inhibit or promote oxidation depending upon the wine.
> 
> It's hard to say from the picture but that looks more like a brandy glass, which would be for "swashing" and aiding the oxidation (breathing) process.
> 
> ...



Hi Larry -

It's clearly labelled as a "white" glass - right size & shape, although with the opening as large as it is, it probably would do red quite nicely. Lest ye doubt as to the identity of the glass, take a look for comparison at the accompanying set's "red" glass  They both look great...which is why we bought them. For whatever reason, we never actually looked inside, and at the bottom of the box, which would have told us that while they were proportioned nicely, they each were just about 2-3 times too big to avoid appearances of winebibbery 

Todd


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 1, 2007)

Todd, those are goblets.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 1, 2007)

Now that I think of it, those are of a convenient size - they're just right in fact... one bottle, one glass. Never have to bother about filling everyone's glass to the same level.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jan 1, 2007)

It’s MUCH more problematic than that, it is sin nature we are looking at in all its ugliness, not to pull a cork or to pull a cork. We are so too much stuck on the externals we are blind, that’s why we NEED the Holy Law to crush that immediately. The issue is addicted to the self and the will and not knowing that the abstainers are of both are just as addicted to themselves as is the drunk/glutton. There is ABSOLUTELY no theological difference in the man that is a drunk or glutton and the man that does not pull a cork or pushes away from the table. How much pride do you experience when you can “not” pull a cork over the poor loathsome drunk or when you can push away from the table over some heavy person who cannot? Do you not feel that insidious addiction to yourself? Boy I do, my greatest struggle with sin is not things of the world so much as it is my addiction to myself in every thing, I cannot escape it. The Law strikes very deadly there. It’s the two sons in the Prodigal all over again. One was a drunkard and a glutton and the other was not, outwardly. But yet in the end they both really wanted the same thing, nothing to do with the father and their own way – the younger son at the beginning, the older son at the end.

The key to the definition of “gluttony” lies within the term itself as unto idolatry to the self or inward turning to the self, that is essentially the sin nature in its barest form, not the external fat or skinny per se which are merely externals. The self seeking the self for life, god-hood, and sovereign rule of self.

Looking at the extremes, an extremely over weight person and an anorexic have the same thing in common, the obsession of food. But more importantly is the inward turning. 
In the broadest sense the “glutton” is gluttonous to themselves, food, the over eating or over obsession of not eating/exercise obsession, is merely expressing a deeper issue – the selfish inward turning and thinking that life and sovereign rule is found and sourced there, that is to be my own god. The drunk is really not all that much different. The “wet” drunk is addicted to himself and drinks to express it, the “dry” drunk, the abstainer, is addicted to himself as well (now keep in mind this doesn’t mean someone who simply doesn’t like drink) and does so to express it. Note that all such expressions, open glutton (over weight), hidden glutton (the health nut), wet drunk and dry drunk are all obsessed with themselves and how they are “appearing” to others and presenting themselves, self glorification to others. The negatives assert their self sovereign aggrandizement by an “in your face” approach, the positive glutton/drunk, abstainers, assert their self sovereign aggrandizement by an “look and behold me a god” approach. Both are crying out, I am boss! Yet both are addicted, the opposite of what they think of themselves, in control and power of will. Both need to hear, “You are not in control, you have no will power, not on your own and not by some infused power from God, you are hopelessly addicted and will die that way unless something objective comes your way and calls you out of the grave.”

The religious abstainer is in reality a drunk, he/she is drunk on themselves and that is how they present it. The wet drunk, the one we typically call a “drunk” is self obsessed too which is why they appear so obviously loathsome to us. We say of such, “He’s just thinking of himself and not his family he is ruining.” True enough but it is at least overtly obvious, the dry drunk, the religious or purposeful abstainer is EXCEEDINGLY obsessed with him/herself but their expression of it is “righteous” in the sense that fallen man understands righteousness and outwardly pretty, he/she is moralistic and proudly displays it yet under “humble” appearance or mask which makes it all the more insidious.

This is where the Cross really shatters all of this tom foolery. Because I’m not suppose to be pointing you to me and all my great things I have under control and am exceedingly proud of to show you under a guise of humility. The more humble I can make it appear the prouder I will be of it and carve myself up to be your god even more, I will thus draw all glory to myself under the guise of piety. Rather we should be seeing how WE ALL are by nature addicted to ourselves and the glorification and the sovereignty of our selves and then saying, “There, that Cross, there is our salvation.”

The drunk and the glutton are similar in both their forms, that pull back to one’s self. Yet we point our fingers at the bad drunk/glutton and say, “Look at that wretch”, and then point at the fine clean abstainer and svelte person and say, “behold (as if pointing out a god) a paragon of righteousness, my god and I must imitate them so that I too can be such a god.” 

We can see this idea of “drunkenness” in Revelation in which the whore of Babylon is drunk on the blood of the saints, that is to be intoxicated upon their blood or death. What does this mean? It means to reveal in their apparent defeat, blood/death. What does this mean? It goes back to what Paul said concerning the children of the law always persecuting the children of the promise, they seek to be right because their godhood rests upon it. It means that works righteousness, the devil’s piety, is victorious, the whore is thus drunk or intoxicated on their blood because it is an apparent victory for her religion, a “I am right” and we’ve killed the infidels (blood = death = self righteousness wins = self righteousness is life). Watch carefully how for example Muslims revel in the streets after an apparent victory, the righteous destroying the unrighteous, or so they think – it’s drunken/intoxicating revelry in self righteousness, self sovereignty, self glorification, man is really supreme if he is self righteous has won. They are literally drunk and intoxicated on and with themselves. It is a more extreme and explicit example of the principle. Similarly is gluttony, to be gorged or sated with the self as a sovereign god and self righteous, self justified negatively (the open sinner) or positively (the false saint) in and of one’s self.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jan 1, 2007)

Todd,

Those are pretty big, I can see it now the difference. You wine bibber!!! When can I come over?


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 1, 2007)

Larry Hughes said:


> Todd,
> 
> Those are pretty big, I can see it now the difference. You wine bibber!!! When can I come over?



Any time, PB'ers are welcome, for a good dinner, conversation and a spot o' wine if you so desire (or a good hoppy ale).


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 1, 2007)

Larry Hughes said:


> It’s MUCH more problematic than that, it is sin nature we are looking at in all its ugliness, not to pull a cork or to pull a cork. We are so too much stuck on the externals we are blind, that’s why we NEED the Holy Law to crush that immediately. The issue is addicted to the self and the will and not knowing that the abstainers are of both are just as addicted to themselves as is the drunk/glutton. There is ABSOLUTELY no theological difference in the man that is a drunk or glutton and the man that does not pull a cork or pushes away from the table.



 Thanks for the above post, Larry. So often is it not the case that we have utterly failed to see what God's Word truly calls us to? We so easily fall into the Pharisaical trap of thinking it's all about externals! Sin is SO much more ugly than our external behavior - so much more dark, so much more wretched. We don't often want to go there, for fear of knowing who we truly are inside!


----------



## turmeric (Jan 1, 2007)

Yes, thanks for the post. And the info on the proper shape of wine glasses. I love a good cab or a merlot.


----------



## bowhunter1961 (Jan 2, 2007)

i never really thought about the "whys" before till just now...i think, with me, over eating is just my lack of faith that the Lord will provide my daily bread. and just because it seems like Hes given us the bread truck, doesnt mean we have to eat it in one sitting.
...as far as wine goes, red wine messes with my allergies....beer, it taste too yeasty for me, but hand me a bock, now i can talk gluttony....lol


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 2, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I've been reflecting lately on the hypocrisy that many Evangelicals have toward alchohol consumption compared to overindulgence in eating. Manmade doctrine in many evangelical circles condemns any and all alchohol consumption while virtually ignoring or revelling in the sin of gluttony. The Scriptures link drunkenness and gluttony together as virtually identical sins.
> 
> What is sad about this issue is that those who preach complete abstinence are missing the whole point of the Scriptures concerning these things. They complete ignore Paul in Collosians 2:
> 
> ...



Good post, Rich. 

I'll also point out that Sabbath-breaking is nearly universal in our time, and admit that I need to become more consistent with observing it myself. In many areas, especially the "Bible Belt", many restaurants would likely be closed on Sunday were it not for the hordes of church-goers that patronize them. Of course, Sabbatarians can be just as guilty of gluttony as anyone.


----------



## Timothy William (Jan 3, 2007)

Something went wrong with my previous post - meant to link to the picture of Capone and add one of Pablo Escobar. At least those who banned alcohol had the legality to pass an Amendment, unlike those who banned hard drugs - but I digress. 

There is, perhaps, an greed aspect to this as well. I remember when studying the Poverty and Famine economics unit at Uni that in times of poverty spending on food can account for a substantial majority of all consumer spending. So the person who is a glutton is spending far more money on themselves than the one who eats modestly. Today the situation is very different - I doubt the average overweight person spends much more on food than the thin person, in fact the poor tend to have a slightly higher likelyhood of obesity. Also, the link to gluttony and drunkards in Scripture could have been related to the phenomenon of people getting drunk at feasts, where large amount of food and alcohol was consumed; at least that is the caricature of ancient history that I have come across. Today food and alcohol abuse are less associated; the drunkard is more likely to drink at a pub or at parties where little food and much drink is consumed.

Gluttony can certainly be sinful, but we need to define our terms properly. I'm not convinced that food consumption which makes one heavier that socially desirable counts as gluttony. The glutton is the one whose appetites control him, who makes no effort to eat in moderation, whose mind and heart are set on his stomach, not on the things of God. I doubt that this is much more prevalent among the overweight than among the thin.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 3, 2007)

Timothy,

I don't think anybody has linked gluttony solely to being overweight but the two cannot be separated. It is no mystery that Americans are 30-40% obese. This statistic does not merely mean that they have a bit of excess fat but are much above what they ought to be. The difference in eating and exercise habits between Americans and other cultures is striking.

I find it interesting how 1 Samuel places especial emphasis on how fat Eli was. His children, as well, were marked by the fact that they were so greedy that they would consume portions of the sacrifice that were meant to be offered to the Lord.

Finally, I think it is important not to become distracted on "this is gluttony but this isn't". I never made nor intended to make the point that a slight weight problem is gluttony nor is gluttony measured in terms of what society deems acceptable. I don't believe, however, that one needs to be _constantly_ obsessed with food in order to be guilty of the sin of gluttony any more than a man needs to be an alcoholic to be occasionally guilty of the sin of being a drunkard. 

If a person lacks self-control in the consumption of food or drink then that is the key issue. I was dealing with the hypocrisy of American Christianity with a special obsession concerning prohibition of alcohol that justifies itself with complete abstinence of one gift while abusing the other without any remorse.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 3, 2007)

Some facts from http://www.obesity.org/subs/fastfacts/obesity_US.shtml


> Overall Prevalence
> 
> Approximately 127 million adults in the U.S. are overweight, 60 million obese, and 9 million severely obese.
> Body Mass Index (BMI) is a measurement tool used to determine excess body weight. Overweight is defined as a BMI of 25 or more, obesity is 30 or more, and severe obesity is 40 or more.
> ...


----------



## Scott (Jan 3, 2007)

Richard Baxter's Christian Directory has a fantastic section on gluttony, which deals with what it is, why it is bad, and how to overcome it. If you have the Directory, check it out. If not, get it! Scott


----------



## Scott (Jan 3, 2007)

Here are some guideline from Baxter's The Signs of a Flesh Pleaser. They are general and are not explicitly limited to food, but are broad enough to cover the kinds of desires that lead to overeating. The guidelines below will help evaluate about how to know if you are engaging in glutony. There is no bright line like a 250 pound man is necessarily a glutton or anything. The Directory (mentioned earlier) has a section that expressly deals with gluttony and food. The directory talks about different circumstances affect evaluating whether one is engaging in gluttony, such as how a farmer who works in the field will naturally eat a lot more than a guy who works in an office, and that is ok. Anyway, while general, the items below are useful.


> 1. When a man in his desire to please his appetite, does not do it with a view to a higher end, that is to say to the preparing himself for the service of God; but does it only for the delight itself. (Of course no one does every action conciously with a view to the service of God. Nevertheless, the general manner or habit of a life spent in the service of God is absent for the flesh-pleaser.)
> 
> 2. When he looks more eagerly and industriously after the prosperity of his body than of his soul.
> 
> ...


----------



## Scott (Jan 3, 2007)

For the record, today I avoided donuts at work and ordered a vegetable plate at lunch! Has anyone started a full-blown fast b/c of this thread?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 3, 2007)

Scott said:


> Here are some guideline from Baxter's The Signs of a Flesh Pleaser. They are general and are not explicitly limited to food, but are broad enough to cover the kinds of desires that lead to overeating. The guidelines below will help evaluate about how to know if you are engaging in glutony. There is no bright line like a 250 pound man is necessarily a glutton or anything. The Directory (mentioned earlier) has a section that expressly deals with gluttony and food. The directory talks about different circumstances affect evaluating whether one is engaging in gluttony, such as how a farmer who works in the field will naturally eat a lot more than a guy who works in an office, and that is ok. Anyway, while general, the items below are useful.



This is why I said about 43 posts back that the issue really lies in idolatry and covetousness.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 13, 2007)

Add'l thoughts:

Matthew 11:19 19 "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax-gatherers and sinners!' Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds." 

The Pharisees and Saduccess saw Jesus as a glutton and drunkard. What measuring stick were they using? In light of Christs perfection, if the definition has to do with food, without a doubt ALL Americans are gluttons and there is no way to avoid this. More accurately, after looking at this a little more, it seems as if the Hebrew definition has to do with 'useless' eating. Example: Eating just for the sake of eating; not as much with the amout of consumption.


----------



## turmeric (Jan 13, 2007)

Scott Bushey said:


> Add'l thoughts:
> 
> Matthew 11:19 19 "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax-gatherers and sinners!' Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds."
> 
> The Pharisees and Saduccess saw Jesus as a glutton and drunkard. What measuring stick were they using? In light of Christs perfection, if the definition has to do with food, without a doubt ALL Americans are gluttons and there is no way to avoid this. More accurately, after looking at this a little more, it seems as if the Hebrew definition has to do with 'useless' eating. Example: Eating just for the sake of eating; not as much with the amout of consumption.



So, maybe it was the fact that, instead of being an ascetic, like John the Baptist, Jesus accepted dinner invitations, including invitations from people like Matthew and Zaccheus, who the Pharisees would never eat with. Similar to the criticism Mom has of my church. "Seems like you people are ALWAY eating!" because we have a ladies' breakfast, we go out after church, after homegroup, etc.
She's not seeing the value of fellowship, she thinks it's about food, useless eating.


----------



## Scott (Jan 15, 2007)

Feasting has its place too. The Wedding Feast of the Lamb is not a place to practice asceticism. Whether to feast involves circumstance. Eating for fellowship is a healthy activity. It happens many places in the Bible.


----------



## calgal (Jan 15, 2007)

It is about having self control (a fruit of the spirit If I recall correctly).  And thanks for making me think about food (food for thought literally).


----------



## Chris (Jan 16, 2007)

There has actually been discussion in the SBC of bringing gluttony up at the next convention, and forwarding a resolution on it. 

As a side note, Rich, i notice that you're in Asia.....when I was in Asia I ate like a pig, but the food was healthier and I exercised more, so I actually lost weight. 

(Not to worry, I gained it back as soon as I got back to the states)


----------

