As many of you know, I prefer to post and ghost. In other words, I share something, and then I rarely return to read the comments, if only because I believe humans weren’t designed to receive 24/7 input from an endless crowd of digital judges. It’s not healthy to live beneath the constant gaze of the commentariat. Admittedly, 24/7 commentary goes with the territory for anyone who writes for public consumption, which I do. Still, I’m wise enough to know that the soul can wither when every thought must be defended and every sentence explained. It’s better, I think, to set one’s observations before readers, entrust it to the Lord, and then move on with the quiet confidence that truth doesn’t require

That said, sometimes I break my own rule.

Essentially, I shared an image of myself, Dr. James Lindsay, Father Calvin Robinson, Bishop Mel Williams, and William Federer enjoying pre-conference whiskies and cigars on my deck. It wasn’t long before Facebook reply notifications began arriving. Usually, I scroll past those notifications. But this time I didn’t. I clicked on one.

A passerby had expressed concern: “That doesn’t seem like the best example to set for young parishioners.”

Now, his words are a common enough sentiment. The supposition is that anything capable of misuse must be avoided altogether by Christians, lest someone follow the example and sin. This is Pietism in its most socially acceptable form: the attempt to preserve holiness by limiting someone else’s Christian liberty.

Attempting to be funny (but not really), I replied, “It was a heretical-pietist-free evening. Praise God for that!” Maybe I shouldn’t have. But I did. With that, the conversation grew, and with textbook precision. My counterpart immediately invoked the dangers of addiction and disease. I responded that not all enjoyments lead to sin and then offered the ancient liturgical phrase, “Τὰ ἅγια τοῖς ἁγίοις” (The holy things for the holy ones). In other words, God’s gifts are for those sanctified by Christ, not denied by fear.

The back-and-forth continued. He warned against “promoting potentially harmful behaviors.” Identifying this as classic Pietism, I took another quick moment to lay out the contrast between moral restraint and moralism:

“You are conflating personal abstinence with holiness and assuming that visible restraint equals moral superiority… you make ordinary Christian liberty (whisky and cigars) sin-adjacent, implying that the ‘holy’ choice is abstention.”

Of course, what I just shared with you was not my entire reply. In my much longer response, I invoked God’s Word and fundamental human reason, adding that the dangers of sugar, gluttony, and social media are by far statistically worse for health than cigars or whisky. My point was not complicated: true wisdom is not found in prohibition, but in discernment.

Still, he kept on. Clearly wounded by personal loss, he shared his father’s tragic battle with lung cancer. Yet even his heartfelt appeal that others should keep their “unhealthful affectations” private revealed Pietism’s blind spot. Pietism mistakes personal experience for universal moral law. In fact, is that not one of the great dreadfulnesses of our age—the confusion of subjective perception with objective reality? People no longer ask what is true, but rather what feels true to them. Truth has become elastic, molded to suit one’s emotion or experience. But someone’s subjective conviction, however sincere, cannot alter objective reality. Reality fragments when truth is privatized, its authority giving way to the tyranny of preference.

That’s the soul of Pietism. The objective Gospel is recast as personal sentiment rather than divine fact.

I know some might argue it, but I think my final (and rather lengthy) reply was both pastoral and theological, weaving together compassion, Scripture, and principle. I wrote, “Your experiences are tragic, and you have my sympathy… But in my home, I will not make your weakness my law. Christian liberty is not sin. Compulsion is.”

Then, as before, I anchored the argument in God’s Word—Titus 1:15, 1 Timothy 4:4, Psalm 104:15, Luke 7:34, Galatians 5:1. Each text underscores that the Christian life is not defined by what we abstain from, but by what we receive rightly. Certainly, one could say that Pietism was born of good intentions. Indeed, it was a 17th-century reaction to cold orthodoxy and a response to the particular woes of the day, alcoholism being one of them. But good intentions can be deadly when they elevate personal zeal above divine grace. In its essence, Pietism teaches that visible piety proves a person’s inner holiness. When it does this, it replaces the Gospel’s declaration, “You are free,” with the conscience’s suspicious questioning, “Are you holy enough?”

That’s not good. That’s flat-out dangerous to the soul.

Still, the Pietist goes further, imposing on others, “Do not drink, smoke, dance, or play cards, because these things might harm your witness.” But the Gospel says, “All things are lawful—not all are beneficial, but you are free” (1 Corinthians 10:23).

I suppose part of the irony in all of this is that Pietism sees danger everywhere except in itself. It replaces real sin with symbols of sin, preferring the optics of sanctity to the substance of faith. It is less concerned with the heart that trusts Christ than with the appearance that pleases observers.

Maybe even the more profound irony is that Pietism claims to protect morality but ends up birthing hypocrisy. It trains Christians to hide, to present a sanitized version of life, and to confuse the suppression of appetite with the cultivation of virtue. As it does this, it unwittingly revives the very Pharisaical spirit Christ so often condemned—the one that tithed mint and cumin but neglected mercy, freedom, and joy.

Against this, Saint Paul, and ultimately Confessional Lutheranism, have a proper understanding of these things, one that stands firm. And it’s simply that God’s creation is good, and when received with thanksgiving, it sanctifies rather than defiles. When Scripture warns against drunkenness, it condemns excess, not alcohol’s existence. When Paul tells Timothy to “use a little wine,” he affirms alcohol’s benefit, not vice. When Jesus turns water into wine at Cana, He not only dignifies holy marriage, but also Godly fellowship and festivity. You know one thing Jesus doesn’t do in Cana? Magnify abstinence.

Make no mistake, the theology of Christian liberty does not promote recklessness. It insists that the conscience be ruled by grace, not by fear. It says that a Christian’s freedom is not to be licentiousness, but rather faithfulness. In this context, a Christian can receive a cigar or a dram of whisky as a gift, not as a threatening vice or idol. A Christian can also choose to refrain, not because of superstition concerning one’s holiness, but according to Godly discernment.

I quoted Saint Paul’s words in my final response, saying, “If food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat” (1 Corinthians 8:13). For the record, that’s not self-contradictory, not in context. Paul is writing about charity, not control. He’s teaching about sensitivity, not censorship. Saint Paul would never forbid meat. To do so would make his other writings on the subject instantaneously hypocritical. In this instance, he forbids the sin of despising the weaker conscience. Still, Paul’s compassion never becomes compliance with false laws. And so, I also shared Saint Paul’s words that “to the pure, all things are pure” (Titus 1:15), and that “everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving” (1 Timothy 4:4). I noted that God Himself gives “wine to gladden the heart of man” (Psalm 104:15). I even reminded that Christ was accused of being “a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners” (Luke 7:34), not because He was those things, but because He partook freely of God’s gifts within holy boundaries with others.

My opponent’s final plea—that such moments be kept private to avoid tempting the “impressionable”—revealed one of Pietism’s most corrosive features. Pietism’s instinct is to hide the very goodness of God’s creation. It imagines that holiness grows in secrecy, that joy must be concealed lest someone misunderstand. But remember, Christ’s first miracle at Cana was very public. His critics were the ones who scowled that He did the things He did so openly and so freely.

I should also add that to hide God’s gifts is not humility. It’s ingratitude. To pretend that the Christian life is tidy, risk-free, and maybe even unembodied is so far away from spiritual maturity. Perhaps worse, it’s a denial of the Incarnation itself. Indeed, God did not hover above creation as though holiness required distance from it. He dwelt bodily in it in ways that Pietism insists we distrust. To recoil from the tangible—food, drink, fellowship, and the bodily joys of this life—is to behave as though God erred in becoming man. It is to imply that holiness exists only in the abstract, not in the enfleshed grace of Christ who came as one of us—eating and drinking—for our salvation. The Word became flesh, not vapor.

In the end, I suppose the entire debate comes down to who sets the boundaries of holiness. Is it human fear or divine grace? I think Pietists fear liberty because they cannot control it. Pietists are closet tyrants. But Christians are free from such tyranny in every way. They are enabled by the Holy Spirit through faith to discern and embrace Christian liberty, ultimately trusting in Christ, the One who governs it.

“For freedom Christ has set us free,” Paul wrote, “do not submit again to a yoke of slavery” (Galatians 5:1). The Pietist, though well-meaning, forges a new yoke from his own fears and insists that it’s righteousness. But freedom—true Gospel freedom—is not the enemy of holiness. It is its foundation.

So, pour the whisky if you want. If it will lead to your demise, don’t. Light the cigar if you prefer. If it will harm your physical condition, discern the foolishness of your action and don’t. But whichever you choose, laugh with friends who love Christ. And do so not to provoke the weak, but to proclaim the strength of Christian liberty and its discernment. Proclaim that God’s gifts are good. His creation is not the problem, and holiness is found not in rejecting or hiding His generosity but in receiving it in faith with all joy.