Drinking alcohol and non-drinking companions

[kiwi57]

6 hours ago, Five Solas said:

This mirrors my own experience to a great extent.  I too was LDS for the first ~ decade of my career, and while I sometimes attended the optional social events (and occasionally served as designated driver)--I never made it a priority.  I believed that if I just focused on my client deliverables, worked long & hard that the cosmic forces would ensure I got what I deserved and my career would take care of itself.  Suffice it to say I got stalled at the senior manager level and couldn't diagnose the problem.  I just thought certain people were against me, for whatever undisclosed reasons they had.

I had a weird thing about alcohol back then, and I'll share a story that is going to seem pretty odd to some.  Shortly after I was baptized LDS (I would have been in the second grade living in Renton WA), I was at a friend's house.  We were in his basement and he found a bottle of wine.  He proceeded to open it and pour a few drops into the bottle cap (obviously it wasn't expensive wine).  He stuck his finger in it for a taste--and wanted me to do the same.  I *knew* in my 8 year-old heart that this was wrong.  But I did it anyway.  Willfully, purposefully, wickedly.  Some of you will roll your eyes at this, but I felt incredible guilt for years afterward, a guilt that was only alleviated by doing something even worse (by LDS standards) when I was ~ 12. 

It seared into my brain that this could never happen again.  And even though I wasn't a great Latter-Day Saint, I was utterly invincible to peer pressure to try a beer or anything else alcoholic.  There was no history of alcoholism in my family, I didn't know any alcoholics, none of the usual reasons folks choose to abstain applied to me.  It was just that singular moment in the second grade that I never forgot, and probably never will.  It was six months after I became a Christian, by then in my mid 30's -

Sorry to interrupt, but if you were baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ at age 8, then you were already a Christian.

Mormons, you see, are Christians. This is an utterly irrefutable fact that is denied only by the most dedicated anti-Mormon propagandists.

6 hours ago, Five Solas said:

 

Could someone achieve all this and more while abstaining from alcohol?  I'm sure they can and do.  But could I have done so?  I think not.  I think the lesson my inner 8 year-old learned needed to be shattered, and by God's grace--it was.

God is not to blame for your falling away. You did that entirely of your own volition.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Could someone achieve all this and more while abstaining from alcohol?  I'm sure they can and do.  But could I have done so?  I think not.

Hi, Erik. What do you think you would have done in the after-hours work situation that I described above?

[california boy]

The responses in this tread are really interesting.  And I have to say quite foreign to me.  I have no interest in drinking.  It is just not important in my life.  I have however been around those that drink most of my life, both personal friends and business associates.  Maybe I live in an area of the country that just doesn't make the kinds of judgements that some are reporting.  Or maybe I just don't care what they think of me just because I don't drink.  It has literally never been an issue.  When I am out with my friends or over to their house for dinner, they know me well enough to just assume that I am not going to drink.  Often they have bought Coke Zero specifically for me so that while I was not drinking wine with dinner, they could provide what they knew I would prefer.  Yeah I go to bars when my friends are meeting up there.  It doesn't affect me one bit.  If you aren't drinking, a bar is not some evil den of iniquity any more than a coffee shop.  There are lots of reasons people don't drink.  I have seen more people admired for not drinking that being scorned for not drinking.

Just my personal experience.  Maybe when someone is gay, they develop a thick skin and couldn't care less if someone is judging them for things that don't really matter.

[Stargazer]

On ‎1‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 1:17 AM, Five Solas said:

That might be a little harsh, Robert F. Smith.  I don't have a ton of experience, but ~ 10 years ago I was on a Microsoft engagement that included a couple weeks in Tokyo.  Only time in my life I've done karaoke (I served up David Bowie's "Modern Love").  But yeah, it's different there--with a different set of expectations.  I'm not advocating all of that. 

Waylon's post was interesting.  He describes no pressure to drink.  His colleagues appear to respect the practice of his religion.  He just doesn't want to attend.  And when his employer makes attendance mandatory, he "sits in the corner" rather than socialize with a diet coke in his hand.  And why is that?  It's because he objects to the venue.  That's it.  He believes "the spirit" cannot be adequately felt in bars and the like.  And better to avoid such places (or non-verbally communicate his displeasure by sitting in the corner). 

I applaud his candor in saying so.  I suspect he's not alone.  And I would like him to see he's making a mistake, that this isn't a choice between people, places--and God the Spirit.  Not only is his behavior unlikely to be helping his career--it reveals a wrong understanding of God. 

--Erik

__________________________________

Modern love
Walks beside me
Modern love
Walks on by
Modern love
Gets me to the church on time

--David Bowie, 1983

Several years ago at my job we had a noontime celebration of having completed a project, and the team (about seven of us) were going to go to a venue to have lunch. They picked a bar, and I told them regretfully that I wouldn't go, and so they changed the venue.  It was nice to be appreciated enough that they changed just for lil ole me. But I felt slightly awkward about it -- I don't usually like to make waves unnecessarily

[Five Solas]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Hi, Erik. What do you think you would have done in the after-hours work situation that I described above?

I would have walked out.  For the same reason I don't patronize strip clubs (even though I know some people, happily a small minority where I work, do).  Having a drink & conversation in a bar or restaurant is an altogether different thing than the group titillation described in your example.  I don't subscribe to, "When in Rome..." 

That this was your personal experience notwithstanding, you introduced an edge case that isn't terribly helpful to the topic at hand. 

--Erik

______________________________________________________

You're surrounded by the bitter and the boring
And you wonder if you're on the turn
And again you get hurt when they're dishing the dirt
Is it me that's feeling insecure?

--Soft Cell, 1981

[Stargazer]

On ‎1‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 3:27 PM, rchorse said:

My wife grew up in southern Germany, so we moved to her hometown for a few years so our kids can learn German better, and so they can get to know her side of the family. We're a couple hours east of Stuttgart in a fairly rural area. I work in Finance/IT for a medium-size company. Considering that I spoke very little German at the time, it was a miracle that I was able to find a job.

Wow, that's cool!

I served my mission in Central Germany (Duesseldorf), and later, in the US Army, I was stationed at Ulm on the Danube river.  I bet I would recognize where you live.  After her family fled East Berlin, my late wife finished growing up in Ulm, and her mother still lived there when I got stationed there (way back in 1980).  

Nowadays I'm living in England with my new wife.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, Five Solas said:

I would have walked out.

Thanks, Erik.

Quote

For the same reason I don't patronize strip clubs (even though I know some people, happily a small minority where I work, do).

What reason is that, though? And what if your boss were amongst those who patronise such clubs and started hosting after-work social get-togethers at such venues ... just for those who wanted to join in, of course?

Quote

That this was your personal experience notwithstanding, you introduced an edge case that isn't terribly helpful to the topic at hand.

Well, I don't know yet what your objection/s to strip clubs may be, but the fact that already you can't entertain the possibility that others might have similar objections to alcohol culture is certainly interesting.

[Five Solas]

7 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Thanks, Erik.

What reason is that, though? And what if your boss were amongst those who patronise such clubs and started hosting after-work social get-togethers at such venues ... just for those who wanted to join in, of course?

Well, I don't know yet what your objection/s to strip clubs may be, but the fact that already you can't entertain the possibility that others might have similar objections to alcohol culture is certainly interesting.

By God's grace, my life isn't some rudderless thing carried by the currents of expediency, Hamba Tuhan.  Scripture informs my values first and foremost.  And there are things that are clearly out of bounds.  Your example doesn't cause me a moment's hesitation.  That you appear to equate sexual pornography with fermented/distilled drinks--well, let's just say I'd enjoy reading your argument, using the Bible as your point of reference.   

I've good reason to think you've read a few of my posts and have some sense of what I'm about.  "I don't know yet what your objection to strip clubs may be"--forgive me for saying so, but this feels a bit sly on your part.  You can feign surprise and ask me why I think that, but the conversation will be at an end if you try to play that game.  I won't have the patience.    

--Erik

[Hamba Tuhan]

24 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

"I don't know yet what your objection to strip clubs may be"--forgive me for saying so, but this feels a bit sly on your part.

I had no intention to provoke you to ire, mate. This was my attempt to let you define your objection/s for yourself without my making undue assumptions. An important step, in my opinion, since you genuinely didn't give the answer that I would have given. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your objection to attending an after-hours work social at a strip club is because you understand the Bible to forbid such?

[Amulek]

On 1/9/2018 at 10:59 PM, Tacenda said:

I've probably let quite a few good people go by without engaging just because they drink, in my TBM days. Now that I'm not so much, I'm more open to friendshipping people like them. [...]

Well, I've always been open to being friends with people who make different choices / live different standards. Having grown up in a small(ish) town in Texas, it was either learn how to make friends with different kinds of people or be content with like, two LDS friends. 

That being said, if you aren't comfortable in a situation, it's going to show. So if you don't think you could hang out with your co-workers for a drink without being able to have a good time, then maybe taking a pass is the best idea. For me, I genuinely like the people that I work with, and I like hanging out with them. And since I've moved up the ladder into the upper levels of management I've got another baked in excuse to not go to happy hour all the time: hey, I can't show up to all of these anymore, because you guys have to be able to complain about your boss sometime, right? 

Edited January 12, 2018 by Amulek

[Amulek]

13 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Several years ago at my job we had a noontime celebration of having completed a project, and the team (about seven of us) were going to go to a venue to have lunch. They picked a bar, and I told them regretfully that I wouldn't go, and so they changed the venue.  It was nice to be appreciated enough that they changed just for lil ole me. But I felt slightly awkward about it -- I don't usually like to make waves unnecessarily

It could be worse. You could be vegetarian. 

Seriously. In my experience, picky eaters are the biggest obstacle for a fun team lunch. You can get booze anywhere.

 

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

It could be worse. You could be vegetarian. 

Seriously. In my experience, picky eaters are the biggest obstacle for a fun team lunch. You can get booze anywhere.

 

There was this very odd fellow in my US Army Basic Combat Training company, he was kind of like Hare Krishna, and kind of like something self-grown. I don't know what he was, actually. He kept his head shaved (unusual for the day), and ate meatless.  I one time heard him say "If you knew what I knew, you'd not eat meat either!"  I don't remember if he made it successfully through BCT.  The mess hall cooks seemed to like him, for some reason; they made sure his plate was always piled high with vegetables. The drill sergeants were great for pounding nails flat that protruded from the board (as it were), but they didn't pile on top of his weirdness -- probably because he put a lot of effort into learning and doing

Presumably he wasn't going into the Combat Arms field, but I don't know.  Combat troops can't be too picky about what they eat, at least out in the field.  If they want to eat, anyway.

[Jeanne]

I would just like to say that if Tacenda and I could meet in person...that I would feel comfortable having my margarita and offering her a diet coke or something  and our conversation would remain the same...to me, this is all silly stuff.

[Five Solas]

On 1/12/2018 at 6:07 AM, Amulek said:

... And since I've moved up the ladder into the upper levels of management I've got another baked in excuse to not go to happy hour all the time: hey, I can't show up to all of these anymore, because you guys have to be able to complain about your boss sometime, right? 

It takes a certain humility to recognize this--that sometimes your absence serves better than your presence.  It's very true. 

:0)

--Erik

[Five Solas]

On 1/11/2018 at 6:28 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your objection to attending an after-hours work social at a strip club is because you understand the Bible to forbid such?

Our God turned water into wine, Hamba Tuhan.  And in your previous post, you appeared to equate fermented beverages with sexual pornography.  You asked how one differs from the other in the context of an after-hours work social.  And called out on it--you made no attempt to clarify or walk it back.  Instead you doubled-down, here asking me to explain how there could be a problem.  Because you *honestly* can't see it yourself, and you *genuinely* want to understand my point of view. 

Be flattered by my incredulity--it means I think you're a good deal more sophisticated than this.  But the ends don't justify the means, Hamba Tuhan.  And in your case, the means is blasphemy. 

--Erik

[Okrahomer]

On 1/11/2018 at 6:58 PM, Five Solas said:

By God's grace, my life isn't some rudderless thing carried by the currents of expediency, Hamba Tuhan.  Scripture informs my values first and foremost.  And there are things that are clearly out of bounds.

(Bold mine)

I appreciate and agree with your approach.  So one wonders how (or even if) you allow 1 Corinthians 8 or Romans 14 to inform your values?  What about folks in your workplace who have personal weaknesses and/or sensitivities toward alcohol consumption?  Is it possible that your drinking creates a stumbling block for them?

Edited January 14, 2018 by Okrahomer

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

Our God turned water into wine

And it was a LOT of wine and it was very good wine, too, as evidenced by the host's response to it. Thanks be to the Blessed Virgin Mary for exhorting Him to do it, too.

Can you imagine drinking God's wine? Wow, what a wedding party  

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

Be flattered by my incredulity--it means I think you're a good deal more sophisticated than this.  But the ends don't justify the means, Hamba Tuhan.  And in your case, the means is blasphemy. 

--Erik

The very charge that was levelled against Jesus.

Who gave teachings that departed from thousands of years of tradition.

Funny, that.

[Hamba Tuhan]

17 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Be flattered by my incredulity--it means I think you're a good deal more sophisticated than this.  But the ends don't justify the means, Hamba Tuhan.  And in your case, the means is blasphemy. 

Wow, it would appear that something in my posts has touched a raw nerve. Again, not my intention at all, though based your misreading of my in-good-faith posts and sincere questions up to this point, I see no reason to try to convince you otherwise. Enjoy your life, Erik.

[Five Solas]

On 1/13/2018 at 10:02 PM, Okrahomer said:

(Bold mine)

I appreciate and agree with your approach.  So one wonders how (or even if) you allow 1 Corinthians 8 or Romans 14 to inform your values?  What about folks in your workplace who have personal weaknesses and/or sensitivities toward alcohol consumption?  Is it possible that your drinking creates a stumbling block for them?

It's a really good question, Okrahomer.  In both of those chapters, Paul is writing to believers.  He doesn't want believers to divide over a number of different questions, including what they eat and drink and whether they regard the sabbath day above the others in the week or whether they hold every day alike.  But it has no bearing for those outside the Christian Faith who worship a different god/gods and follow other commands.   

Here's where Paul's words have practical effect for me.  My wife and I host a church small group/bible study Wednesday evenings at our home.  I will often serve beer, wine or cider with dinner to those of legal age who wish to have one.  But if we had a Christian brother or sister who was recovering from addiction and this presented a difficulty--then we should not and would not be serving to anyone.  And this actually did happen for a couple of years in our small group. 

That's where the rubber meets the road with those passages. 

But that said, please go back and review what I wrote at the beginning (page 1) of this thread.  I have a responsibility to be inclusive and to ensure non-alcoholic beverages are available for those who choose not to drink alcohol (for whatever good reasons they may have).  And it's a responsibility I take seriously.

--Erik

[Okrahomer]

14 hours ago, Five Solas said:

It's a really good question, Okrahomer.  In both of those chapters, Paul is writing to believers.  He doesn't want believers to divide over a number of different questions, including what they eat and drink and whether they regard the sabbath day above the others in the week or whether they hold every day alike.  But it has no bearing for those outside the Christian Faith who worship a different god/gods and follow other commands.   

Here's where Paul's words have practical effect for me.  My wife and I host a church small group/bible study Wednesday evenings at our home.  I will often serve beer, wine or cider with dinner to those of legal age who wish to have one.  But if we had a Christian brother or sister who was recovering from addiction and this presented a difficulty--then we should not and would not be serving to anyone.  And this actually did happen for a couple of years in our small group. 

That's where the rubber meets the road with those passages. 

But that said, please go back and review what I wrote at the beginning (page 1) of this thread.  I have a responsibility to be inclusive and to ensure non-alcoholic beverages are available for those who choose not to drink alcohol (for whatever good reasons they may have).  And it's a responsibility I take seriously.

--Erik

In these situations, how do you know who is or isn't a believer?  How do you know when a believing addict is "cured" to the point that your drinking will not cause him/her to stumble?

 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Okrahomer

[Five Solas]

12 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

In these situations, how do you know who is or isn't a believer?  How do you know when a believing addict is "cured" to the point that your drinking will not cause him/her to stumble?

I think you need to take a person's word on it, Okrahomer.  That doesn't mean a suspension of all judgement/discernment of course.  If someone tells you he or she doesn't have a problem and yet appears repeatedly out of control--then respond according to what you see, not what you hear.  And if someone tells you he or she is a Christian and yet argues Jesus was a created being--then apply a little skepticism (apologies in advance to all the Jehovah's Witnesses I just threw under the bus).  

Does that answer your questions?  And out of curiosity, what did you think I might say?  Paul's message in the passages you cited previously isn't for believers to adopt the lowest common denominator at all times & in all cases in order to eliminate any possible risk of offense.  If you go back and read them--you'll see it would be pretty crazy if that were supposed to be the case.   

--Erik

__________________________________________

I build my canopy of steel
It fulfills my sense of real
A chrome protection

--Catherine Wheel, 1993

[Okrahomer]

10 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I think you need to take a person's word on it, Okrahomer.  That doesn't mean a suspension of all judgement/discernment of course.  If someone tells you he or she doesn't have a problem and yet appears repeatedly out of control--then respond according to what you see, not what you hear.  And if someone tells you he or she is a Christian and yet argues Jesus was a created being--then apply a little skepticism (apologies in advance to all the Jehovah's Witnesses I just threw under the bus).  

Does that answer your questions?  And out of curiosity, what did you think I might say?  Paul's message in the passages you cited previously isn't for believers to adopt the lowest common denominator at all times & in all cases in order to eliminate any possible risk of offense.  If you go back and read them--you'll see it would be pretty crazy if that were supposed to be the case.   

--Erik

__________________________________________

I build my canopy of steel
It fulfills my sense of real
A chrome protection

--Catherine Wheel, 1993

I always expect but seldom see more evidence of human kindness and charity in your responses.  What I see instead is someone who seems to relish the logic of his “Christian Liberty” above all—it all seems a bit too conveniently blamed on scripture.  I find it interesting that rather than taking the “lowest common denominator” you choose in fact to defend the highest.  So I won’t trouble you with citations from John Piper, John MacArthur or any other Reformed theologian who do—in fact—advocate that Christians sacrifice their liberty in order to be sure that one is never a stumbling block to the weak—believing or not.  I don’t believe that loving one’s neighbor only extends to those who attend my church or who believe exactly as I do.  My reading and study of the scriptures simply won’t allow it.  My discernment is that everyone I meet is a potential believer.

 

[Five Solas]

13 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

I always expect but seldom see more evidence of human kindness and charity in your responses.  What I see instead is someone who seems to relish the logic of his “Christian Liberty” above all—it all seems a bit too conveniently blamed on scripture.  I find it interesting that rather than taking the “lowest common denominator” you choose in fact to defend the highest.  So I won’t trouble you with citations from John Piper, John MacArthur or any other Reformed theologian who do—in fact—advocate that Christians sacrifice their liberty in order to be sure that one is never a stumbling block to the weak—believing or not.  I don’t believe that loving one’s neighbor only extends to those who attend my church or who believe exactly as I do.  My reading and study of the scriptures simply won’t allow it.  My discernment is that everyone I meet is a potential believer.

Well, if I'm not meeting your expectations, at least one of us must be at fault.

:0)

Christian liberty is an interesting expression--derived from a number of passages in the New Testament.  I never heard the phrase back when I was LDS.  (And a quick reality-check using the search box on lds.org confirms that in this particular case--the fault is unlikely to have been mine.)  Is it possible that coming from a religious background characterized by the absence of the notion--that I've overcompensated/overemphasized it here and now?  I'll conceded the possibility, but I'll ask that you demonstrate my error with Scripture, Okrahomer.

For those unfamiliar with the meaning of the expression, here's a quick primer: https://www.ligonier.org/blog/4-principles-exercise-christian-liberty/.

And yes, Christians must sometimes restrain the exercise of their freedom.  From the link I provided--

That does not mean that I must become the slave of another’s conscience. John Calvin puts the point well when he says that we restrain the exercise of our freedom for the sake of weak believers, but not when we are faced with Pharisees who demand that we conform to what is unscriptural. Where the gospel is at stake, liberty needs to be exercised; where the stability of a weak Christian is at stake, we need to restrain it.

If you think you have a contradictory viewpoint from Piper, MacArthur, et al.--bring it.  In fact, please consider this a CFR. Bring it or kindly retract your claim. 

When God revealed all of the animals to Peter in a vision (Acts 10, 11) and told him to rise, slaughter and eat--He didn't make an exception with beef for fear of offending Hindus.  He didn't tell Peter to make an exception with pork because Islam would be invented & its adherents wouldn't appreciate that.  Nor does God turn water into wine (John 2) only to tell believers they must abstain for fear of offending 20th century LDS. 

I mean to disparage no one with these comments, Okrahomer.  It's my responsibility to be inclusive and to provide appropriate options for the people on my team, whether it's vegetarian options for those who think eating meat is wrong (or at least just not for them) or non-alcoholic beverages for those who don't wish to consume.  If you believe my conduct and views as I've expressed them are inappropriate and unbiblical--again, don't just make assertions against me--bring your evidence from Scripture.

--Erik

_______________________________________

See the cowboys fat and reeling
Dancing underneath the ceiling
Leave the bar the theatre's closing
Make a wall of your religion
Imitation of Christ

--The Psychedelic Furs, 1980

[Okrahomer]

6 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Christian liberty is an interesting expression--derived from a number of passages in the New Testament.  I never heard the phrase back when I was LDS.  (And a quick reality-check using the search box on lds.org confirms that in this particular case--the fault is unlikely to have been mine.)  Is it possible that coming from a religious background characterized by the absence of the notion--that I've overcompensated/overemphasized it here and now?  I'll conceded the possibility, but I'll ask that you demonstrate my error with Scripture, Okrahomer.

If you think you have a contradictory viewpoint from Piper, MacArthur, et al.--bring it.  In fact, please consider this a CFR. Bring it or kindly retract your claim. 

When God revealed all of the animals to Peter in a vision (Acts 10, 11) and told him to rise, slaughter and eat--He didn't make an exception with beef for fear of offending Hindus.  He didn't tell Peter to make an exception with pork because Islam would be invented & its adherents wouldn't appreciate that.  Nor does God turn water into wine (John 2) only to tell believers they must abstain for fear of offending 20th century LDS. 

I mean to disparage no one with these comments, Okrahomer.  It's my responsibility to be inclusive and to provide appropriate options for the people on my team, whether it's vegetarian options for those who think eating meat is wrong (or at least just not for them) or non-alcoholic beverages for those who don't wish to consume.  If you believe my conduct and views as I've expressed them are inappropriate and unbiblical--again, don't just make assertions against me--bring your evidence from Scripture.

--Erik

I used the term "Christian Liberty", because I see it used frequently in Reformed online sources; and I wanted to speak directly to you so that you would better understand what troubles me.  I apologize if I gave the impression that it has any sort of LDS context.  I had thought (wrongly as it turns out) that the "scare quotes" would indicate that.  I agree that it is not an LDS term, and I have never read or heard it used in LDS teaching.

With respect to the CFR:

Please see John Piper's sermon, "Total Abstinence and Church Membership" where he says this:  "For myself and my family the way I have decided to go is total abstinence. I also believe, in general, that this is the best way for all believers in America today to go."

Also, please see John MacArthur's Sermon, "Interrogating Alcohol" where he says this:  "I will never use my liberty to offend someone else. I’m happy to put my liberty aside. After all, it’s not necessary to drink and it’s not the best to drink, it’s not the highest and the best. And that leads me to the seventh, will it harm my testimony? Can it harm my testimony? And I’ve already answered that question, it can. I want to do all to the glory of God. I don’t want any…anybody to think less of me as a Christian. I’m happy to set aside any freedom for the sake of a clear, clean, Christian testimony."

MacArthur's blog post "Beer, Bohemianism and True Christian Liberty" is also worth a read.

This article from Focus on the Family concludes with this:  "Finally, the advice Paul gives regarding "scandals" and "stumbling-blocks" in I Corinthians 10:23-33, bears special application here. The question should always be not what might or might not be "permissible" for me - a self-centered approach - but how my choice (and especially how I communicate my perspective) might impact other people (Philippians 2:3-4). To put it another way, Christians have a responsibility to regulate all of their behavior in every area of life according to the royal law of love (James 2:8)."

And with that, I'll simply close with a heart-felt, "Amen!"