Structure, Direction, and Drunkenness
Yes, I am a bit stuck on Albert Wolters at the moment. I am, out of necessity, reading and studying in other areas, but my spare thoughts keep drifting towards Wolters' distinction of structure and direction. In particular, I have been thinking of the way that this distinction could be applied to issues such as the natural desire of human beings to become drunk, high, or otherwise intoxicated. Is this desire, at the root, a product of the fall? It certainly doesn't seem so. It seems, at least to me, that there is an undeniable aspect of creational structure involved in these sorts of desires. Without a doubt, as it is directed towards alcohol or drugs, this structural desire is radically perverted and misguided by the corruptive influence of sin. However, it seems that as with anything else that is part of the creation order, we must not reject this desire foundationally, but rather seek to redeemtively redirect it.I can think of no better direction for this desire to be drunk, that is to be completely caught up in an exhilarating emotional and physical experience, than the exercise of the gifts of the Spirits. The discipline of being filled with the Spirit and it manifestations in tongues, prophecy, and any other way through which the Spirit should choose to reveal Himself, provide us with just such an exhilaration. Instead of providing us with carnal pleasures, this sort of drunkenness serves to point us to the person of Christ and the rapturous and uncontrollable joy that a revelation of His work on our behalf produces. It is this very redirection of drunkenness that Paul appears to be addressing in Eph. 5:18 when he encourages us to "not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit."
It is unfortunate that so many Christians, including the majority of our Reformed brothers and sisters, who display such a deep understanding of this structure/direction distinction, would seek to discredit such manifestations of the Holy Ghost. It appears to me that in doing so, they are failing to see the structural goodness of intoxication and the redirection from "debauchery" towards being "filled with the Spirit." It seems that such a redirection is necessary if we are to truly be semper reformanda. How's that for an attempt at working out the implications of Charismatic Neocalvinism?
Cheers!
posted by Andrew Stout | 11:04 AM
6 Comments:
Bill,
It seems that what you're referring to is the aspect of addiction. Certainly, some people have tendencies towards the abuse of substances while others do not. However, what I'm referring to is a general desire in all people for an intoxicating experience. Alcohol and drugs are quite often the means through which this desire is expressed, so those are what I focused on. However, there could be any number of other experiences that people seek to transcend the mundane aspects of life to have an exhilarating feeling of some kind. My point is that we need to recognize the structural aspect of these sorts of desires in general and that we need to redemptively redirect them when they are directed towards the abuse of substances. I think it’s pretty safe to say that some sort of a desire of this kind is to found in all people, and I would suggest that the proper fulfillment of that desire is being filled with the Holy Ghost.
Well stated, Andrew.
I gathered that your main point is that so many who have a biblically-reformed perspective on Kingdom life are limited in their cultural influence by their lack of intimacy with the Holy Spirit.
I suggest that is why some of our brethren have difficulty with the currency of God's law in society.
They can't make the connection between Word and Spirit, wherein
true "intoxication"/conviction,
security and world-changing fruit become evident, guranteed!
Restoration absent Logos and Rhema,
in sync, is impossible. What do you think? In other words, would you agree that intoxicated Jesus followers who ignore the law book are destined for the drunk tank?
Dominionist Calvinism, Amen!
Nothing new/neo under the Son.
How many Calvinists does it take to change a light bulb?
None. God has predestined when the lights will be on..
Wrong Chris...He also predestined the particular agent who would change the light bulb. He predestines the means as well as the results. Your lack of understanding regarding the finer points of Reformed theology is embarrassing. I'll have to ask you not to comment again until you can display a more comprehensive knowledge of the issue that is being discussed.
Andrew,
I agree. It took me some time to realize how broadly your point extends. There are many substances or activities used to achieve intoxicating experiences—all in vain. For we know that the most intoxicating of all experiences is intimacy with God’s very own Spirit.
But even more broadly, as Christians we can take joy in any tribulation because of God’s promises. We can joyfully accept the “plundering of our property” for we know we have a “better possession and abiding one.” (Heb. 12:34). More than escaping through chemically induced intoxicating experiences, Christians can walk in constant peace through all circumstances in contentment. They can seek Holy Spirit induced experiences to abide in Him in a heavenly dimension.
Your post challenged me. The writer of Hebrews acknowledges that God’s soul takes no pleasure in Christians who shrink back from His great promises. We are called to seek God in all things knowing that “those who shrink back and destroyed, but of those who have faith persevere their souls.” (Heb. 10:38-39).
I know that you were making a specific point about the reverence of the gifts today. I hope my comment to didn’t stray too far.
Bill Nye:
Would you say that drunkenness is not sin? I’m confused about what you mean by “Some see all intoxication as bad; others see only the abuse of intoxicating substances as bad. Neither are wrong. Intoxication is therefore a sin, on a "conviction basis."
Thanks, Ruth
Why would one want to ingest ethyl alcohol, anymore than cocaine, pot,
meth, etc., in any amount?
Just a "social thing?"
And legal, of course.
Post a Comment
<< Home