I continue to be surprised by what a big topic this is in the church. I have considered this carefully for many years now, struggling to understand what is the right view from a Biblical perspective. The main reason I have spent so much time considering it is I believe there to be a spirit-realm struggle going on here. My first clue? It is such a big topic in the church and it has been for many, many years. Since this is my blog, I will present my thoughts on the subject and challenge the common arguments I have heard in favor of social drinking within the church.
My intent is to call you - the church - to be intellectually honest about the subject rather than emotional. Additionally, to truly consider what Scripture teaches and to live by the highest standards of holiness, godliness, and love. The Bible teaches us to "work out our own salvation with fear and trembling." (Phil 2:12). To me, this means be very careful in working out issues of faith, belief, and right living because they are issues of eternal significance.
As an overlay, let's look to I Corinthian 8:
1 Now regarding your question about food that has been offered to idols.I believe Paul is writing about an issue of his day that has striking similarities to the issue of social drinking within the Church. Consequently, I think it provides the clearest Scriptural guidance on the question of social drinking. Paul's underlying premise applies quite directly. Now to the arguments...
Yes, we know that “we all have knowledge” about this issue. But while knowledge
makes us feel important, it is love that strengthens the church. 2 Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn’t really know very much. 3 But the person who loves God is the one whom God recognizes.
4 So, what about eating meat that has been offered to idols? Well, we all know that an idol is not really a god and that there is only one God. 5 There may be so-called
gods both in heaven and on earth, and some people actually worship many gods and
many lords. 6 But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created
everything, and we live for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ,
through whom God made everything and through whom we have been given life.
7 However, not all believers know this. Some are accustomed to
thinking of idols as being real, so when they eat food that has been offered to
idols, they think of it as the worship of real gods, and their weak consciences
are violated. 8 It’s true that we can’t win God’s approval by what we eat. We don’t lose anything if we don’t eat it, and we don’t gain anything if we do.
9 But you must be careful so that your freedom does not
cause others with a weaker conscience to stumble. 10 For if others see
you—with your “superior knowledge”—eating in the temple of an idol, won’t
they be encouraged to violate their conscience by eating food that has been
offered to an idol? 11 So because of your superior knowledge, a weak believer
for whom Christ died will be destroyed. 12 And when you sin against other
believers by encouraging them to do something they believe is wrong, you are
sinning against Christ. 13 So if what I eat causes another believer to
sin, I will never eat meat again as long as I live—for I don’t want to cause
another believer to stumble. (emphasis mine)
"But it's a big deal - I can take it or leave it." I hear this most often, but what I find interesting is how few people are willing to leave it. "I can take it or leave it" infers a true 50 - 50 objectivity. If that were the case, if one felt it offended another believer, like Paul, they would simply leave it. But when I discuss this argument, I always get some heavy kickback, which lets me know the person is leaning toward indulging, not restricting their liberty.
Additionally, if it was truly 50 - 50, one would always choose the highest, safest choice, which is always to leave it. There is never risk in not drinking. There is, at least potentially, risk in choosing to drink. In v. 8 above, Paul says the choice of what to eat was 50 - 50. His conclusion? Verse 13 says, "So if what I eat causes another believer to sin, I will never eat meat again as long as I live—for I don’t want to cause another believer to stumble." He appeals to the highest calling of love for one another.
"But it isn't a sin." No - well, maybe not (read I Cor 8:12 above). But this is the language of legalistic Pharisees! Are you kidding me? Is that how you are living your Christian life? Is that your standard? Legalistically avoiding listed sins? I am amazed how often this creeps into a not-under-the-law, New-Testament-Christian-liberty discussion. Please don't live your life at the low, low level of simply avoiding sin. There is a higher calling and a higher way. This one just makes me cringe (can you tell?). If this is all your church has taught you, find a new church! Be filled with the Spirit, don't get drunk with wine (Eph. 5:18)!
"But I don't ever get drunk or have a drinking problem." Although you can legalistically avoid the instruction of Scripture against getting drunk, I don't think social drinking aligns with the overall counsel of Scripture - and it increases the risk of violating wise instruction contained therein. In other words, you will never violate the counsel to "not get drunk with wine" (Eph. 5:18) if you never drink. You might violate it - or at least run the risk - if you choose to drink. Or you might say something you shouldn't while your senses are dulled (consider 1 Peter 4:7 and other verses that address being clear- and sober-minded) and your inhibitions lowered. You might cause another believer to stumble, sinning against them and therefore against the Lord (v. 12 above), etc., etc.
As another illustration, I may not have a debt problem, but the likelihood I will create one greatly increases when I use debt. I can assure you of one thing: if I never use a credit card (even planning to pay it off each month), I will never have credit card debt. Therefore, I can avoid the risk of credit card debt EVERY TIME by avoiding the use of a credit card. In the same way, I can avoid the unnecessary risks associated with drinking (getting drunk, etc.) by choosing to abstain. It seems to be a better choice - IF you can really take it or leave it. I avoid things that unnecessarily increase risk, as a general rule. Perhaps neither drinking nor debt is a sin, but if nothing else, the overall counsel of Scripture seems to nudge us toward avoidance.
"But you drink coffee. Isn't that kind of the same thing?" Uh, well, uh, uh - NO - it's not the same thing. Let's deconstruct my complex answer. Coffee is not an "adult beverage." Alcohol is. The addictive properties of coffee are weaker and less debilitating than alcohol. The social and economic fallout from coffee-holism is basically non-existent. If you want me to, I can present vast research on the problems associated with alcohol (families, careers, and lives torn apart; economic impact of drunk driving, etc.). Need I continue? I will. I don't know of a single person for whom coffee would be considered a stumbling block in their faith. I know of many for whom alcohol is. Coffee doesn't lower your inhibitions. Alcohol does. Coffee isn't associated with harmful and sinful lifestyles like alcohol is (think frat party)...okay, I'll stop.
"But I think it's fun and I don't think there is anything wrong with it." Than why do you cringe and feel inhibited when the non-drinking believer is going to be there? Why do you quit inviting them when they have never said anything to you about it? Maybe a small part of you is still fighting a feeling that it might be wrong. Anyway, is "fun" the highest calling on your life? Is, "nothing wrong with it" the highest standard of living? Or is there a call to moral excellence?
"But so many people in the church drink." "...for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many are they that enter in thereby." (Matt 7:13). Okay, that was not fair. These people are not all going to hell. But really, this argument states the problem. So many people do it. You and others are watching and tend to make decisions based on others' actions. Big risk for causing another beliver to stumble. Besides, who said the actions of others was a proper dictator of my lifestyle? The true standard is the Bible, not the conduct of others.
Okay, if you're still with me, I will be honest. You could say my arguments are weaker when it comes to having a glass of wine with dinner in your home, without guests or with close friends you know to have liberty in this area. It is stronger in the social arena or bar venue. I still believe the highest choice is to abstain, especially if you have kids. Kids are largely influenced by parents' behavior. Kids tend to take their parents' liberties and go a step farther. For example, consider your parents' use of debt vs. yours. Our parents mostly used debt for homes, cars, and occasional purchases. Go back a generation and debt was rarely used by their parents. My generation doesn't think we can navigate the earth without a credit card - or five. I believe the risk is the same for drinking. And the risk is simply not worth it for a non-essential liberty to me. I would rather live by the highest standard and increase the likelihood of safety than indulge my liberty and increase the risk. If I drank and had a child who struggled with alcohol later in life, I would deeply regret it. I have endeavored to live my life with as few regrets as possible. As an addendum, you also have to purchase the wine somewhere, and still risk the weaker believer seeing you and stumbling upon your liberty. My call remains to live by the highest standard!
"But I thought this was a personal finance blog." True, but it's my blog. Okay, drinking is VERY expensive - and on HUGE markup (bad purchase decision - always buy deals)! And every drop ends up in the toilet when you think about it. You would be better off to flush a twenty on the weekend instead of support the alcohol industry. Also, you probably noticed my money illustrations above.
"But isn't Starbuck's expensive, too?" Yes - almost as expensive as alcohol (depending upon your drink of choice). I don't have a good answer for this one except that it also has huge markup and is not a great purchase decision. However, the industry is much more benign than the "adult beverage" industry, and again, I don't know of people who have a true, deep Starbuck's problem - i.e., there are no Starbuck's-anonymous groups - so it is a good alternative to both drinking and flushing your money down the toilet. And there are no real inherent risks associated with coffee and pastries.
I end with this for your consideration (2 Peter 1:4 - 11)
4 And because of his glory and excellence, he has given us great and preciousIf you have thoughtful and intellectually honest commentary, I welcome it. If you truly want to live by the highest standard, whatever that is, let's dialogue. I don't claim to be infallible, but I believe my challenges to be well-thought and compelling, so if I am wrong, you will need some decent backup. I can further support any point above if it was not clear enough. And I suppose I won't delete emotional kickback, but please think about any comments left.
promises. These are the promises that enable you to share his divine nature and
escape the world’s corruption caused by human desires.
5 In view of all this, make every effort to respond to God’s promises. Supplement your faith with a generous provision of moral excellence, and moral excellence with
knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with patient
endurance, and patient endurance with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly
affection, and brotherly affection with love for everyone.
8 The more you grow like this, the more productive and useful you will be in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But those who fail to develop in this way are
shortsighted or blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their old sins.
10 So, dear brothers and sisters, work hard to prove that you really are among those God has called and chosen. Do these things, and you will never fall away. 11 Then God will give you a grand entrance into the eternal Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
If you have read to the end - thank you. I am honored you took the time.
Posts
9 comments:
For some reason, my html editor wouldn't change the layout of the block text verses. It didn't look like they would post broken up like they did. Sorry - I tried.
Ahhh, and just as I was sitting down to read blogs with my glass of wine. (Just kidding). Well said, can't disagree. Especially with the "kids at home" factor. And honestly, if it is, as regularly stated, so easy to take it or leave it, I often wonder why "no one" ever chooses to "leave" it??!!
Oh my goodness, and financially, alcohol racks up fast. When I've picked up wine in the past, I've wondered how on earth folks afford to keep a steady supply!
Then there's the health factor of excessive drinking, beyond the one glass with dinner...
thanks for your boldness in addressing this issue. i agree that the church is negligent in avoiding the topic of social drinking. This and many other topics such as debt, sex, & impacts of media and should be openly discussed and evaluated alongside scripture more often.
I can't (and wouldn't) disagree w/ any of the solid points you made. Too many churches are afraid to address this issue directly and all too often, like you stated, take an emotional approach to it. If there is truly no good that comes from alcohol, why is that so many people (myself included before I truly came to a decision to follow Christ w/ my WHOLE heart) attempt to justify drinking? I know that the answer lies w/in the fact that we would simply rather feed our flesh than to simply be obedient to Christ, but it's unfortunate that we as a church body have not more decisively tackled this problem. You cannot adequately argue w/ the truth of the Word of God. Well said, DeLand. Well said.
Well said, I think you did an amazing job interpreting scripture. I am also very excited you addressed it. Keep up the good work
I shall mildly endeavor to be brief in an attempt to reply, or converse, not refute your position.
I would likely not engage in a for or against stance of social drinking any more than a for or against stance of eating out on the Sabbath, watching TV or movies, dancing, etc. The Holiness movements of which you are fully aware of laid forth the very same arguments, “ Entire Sanctification”, not only for social drinking, but some of the very same issues of their day that I mentioned. Which brings me to my first thought…
1. Context- The likelihood of social drinking as a controversial topic would possibly (probably) be reduced without the lingering effects of the Prohibition Era. Even as the roots of our country are founded in Puritanism there are scholars who recount that more beer was loaded into the Mayflower than water. The Prohibition Era changed the way Americans consumed alcohol. As the effects became clear, several Prohibitionist Legislators recanted their stance as the outcomes of higher alcohol contents, binge drinking, increased drinking among females, and the diminishing idea of consumption of alcoholic beverages during the course of a meal took root in the culture. Really, the laws of supply and demand were at work.
There are many developed countries that have not gone through a Prohibition style era, that alcohol consumption is a normal part of life, especially a meal, and those cultures do not have the negative effects the way we do. Consumption is moderated through normative practice and the urge to binge or abuse is abnormal culturally rather than accepted or even encouraged. It wasn’t until the 2nd century when some legalistic sects, of Gnostic descent, even promoted the idea of abstinence from alcohol.
All of the above being said, if we are to look at context, it must go both ways. In our context alcoholic consumption brings forth negative connotations and we as the church must recognize this. To me, the church should not be informed by the culture, but rather inform the culture. In other words, could the church lead the way practically by influencing the culture, especially the youth culture, in such a way that inhibits the urge to binge drink or otherwise completely cut loose as they “find” themselves? Possibly the temperance movement and prohibition have done more damage as the church latched onto these movements in an attempt to control behavior through the political process rather than the spiritual. In fact, I would assert that the church should be informing the advertising and marketing industry who influences our youth more than ANYONE!
Various sources include: Stanley Baron- Brewed in America: A History of Beer and Ale in the United States, Allan Blaine- Alcoholism and the Jewish Community, Robert Popham- The Social History of the Tavern, various others)
2. Biblically- The overlay of 1 Corinthians 8 is of course the base argument used….in my view the emotion of the argument is neither pro or con directly, for whatever reason on either side, emotion is prevalent. (Usually in any sort of conflicting argument emotion is prevalent…”I’m right and you’re wrong”…save that one for another post!)
Jesus himself created alcohol out of water. Please do not tell me it was grape juice, the Hebrew contains no distinction of alcoholic or not, and due to the climate of the area, juice would ferment in to alcohol very quickly. The discourse of Matthew 15 is also relevant here as Jesus is contrasting his work of grace with the effects of the Pharisaical Law. Specifically in verse 11 he says: “What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' " The Pharisees are complaining that the Disciples do not wash their hands before they eat. Jesus is debunking the two sided nature of their criticism. He came to restore not just humanity, but all of creation…the law still considered creation to be captive through fallen-ness. Still does.
Yet Jesus clearly disapproved of drunkenness (Matthew 24, Luke 12, Luke 21). 1 Timothy 5 could however be read as to advocate drinking. One reason I do not typically like to reason using just the Bible is the same reason I do not really care for statistical evidences...Both can be manipulated to conform to the argument. (I am no saying don't use scripture...I just do not like it in this manner...)
In the name of Christianity there is much that comes out of our mouths that is unclean. Possibly the over indulgence of alcohol makes this point in a more salient manner…
The issue then, as I see it, is not about to drink or not to drink. The issue is one of love. Do you have enough love to keep a brother from sin…that encompasses so much more than drinking. Do we care for one another to die for each other if needed? We are called to be crucified…how many of us a. even know what that means, and b. are willing to do that at the level advocated by Paul here. Am I willing to recognize the ways my life impacts those around me? Unfortunately in the narcissistic, consumer driven culture we surround ourselves with, can we look beyond our wants, our needs, our desires and be the glove on God’s hand to those around us? It is difficult for me to see that in an age of advocating for our personal rights…our personal salvation…our personal devotional time…
Today everything is reduced to the personal. God is three in one, He is community. We must learn to live and make decisions that are in the interests of the community not just ourselves. That I think is what Paul’s concern is. That we assess ourselves in light of others, not just ourselves.
Most of the ancillary arguments you have come across fail at this level. The issue of sin, or justification of doing or not doing, which is what is being danced around in your post, as well as most of the responses could be addressed this way…“The Gospel of Christ, which means the good news of Christ, is given to tell us not what we already know but what we do not know. It is given not to tell us that we have failed, because we already know that about ourselves. That is not good news. It is given to tell us what we have forgotten, and that is who we are.” (J. Philip Newell, Echo of the Soul: The Sacredness of the Human Body.
To me the question of to drink or not drink is the wrong question. That question is looking to justify a position…Jesus did not arrive here to justify a position…the following prayer is illustrative of the QBQ… it directs us to the proper question of how can I love those around me better?
Lord Jesus Christ, you stretched out your arms of love on the hard wood of the cross that everyone might come within the reach of your saving embrace. So clothe us in your Spirit that we, reaching forth our hands in love, may bring those who do not know you to the knowledge and love of you; for the honor of your Name. Amen -The Book of Common Prayer, 101.
In that light then, I see less of a question, and more of a commitment…to Christ and to others…and to redemption.
Perhaps I have strayed off topic, although I have several other thoughts, especially with the specious arguments people have presented to you, these are my off the top thoughts...
I have 2 friends who are alcoholics. Both are mothers of 3 young children. One was raised in a church culture of abstinence, the other, in a church culture of moderation. Both are aware of traditional church views (in America) of abstinence, and both know the current harm alcoholism has caused their families, as well as the potential for greater future harm. But both are unwilling to give it up. A spirit of rebellion exists, deeply rooted. And for what? A few drinks.
When we have a spirit of unrest within us, we seek to quiet that spirit. Alcohol, in moderation, serves this purpose, bringing relaxation. A warmth. Yet we soon may be unable to find quiet through other means, and at that point, we become addicts, seeking the "fix". We must find the root cause for our unrest, and find that peace which passes understanding. While sometimes elusive, it can only be found through transformation in Christ. A problem surfaces however, when we are unwilling and/or unable to accept the sacrificial life changes which accompany transformation. Hence, the root of rebellion lingers, continuing to inflict harm, to keep us addicted.
How do we, the Church, address this issue? Clearly, simple abstinence is the best policy, but in many cases, we are past this. How do we reverse our path? We must choose. We must teach personal responsibility through personal choice. Transformation, then, will inevitably follow, will it not? Must we not use the Bible to teach such responsiblity?
If we must argue "I can and so I will..." then our will is not in submission to Christ. Once we are in submission, we no longer need to argue, for we become as Paul, giving up that food/drink which offends, and we can truly "take it or leave it"--which, in submission, will generally be "leaving it".
While at first glance, the argument may seem to lack theological depth, I would say the simple question "is it best?" still remains valid, and has plenty of depth, historically and theologically. And, honestly, it may be the same thing as "can I love others--and here I might add, myself--enough to refrain from offending them?"
Indeed, the "wine" of the Bible may not have been grape juice, however, the argument can be made for the immense market of suitable (and flavorful) drinks that are available today. In those times and in that culture, clean drinking water was difficult to come by. And in some countries, it is the same today. But not in America--we have clean drinking water, bottled water of every kind, sparkling water, juice, soda pop, milk, and the list goes on and on and on. So why choose alcohol? You like the taste? Sure, so do I. But there are many other choices which do NOT have the implications physically, socially, or spiritually, which alcohol carries.
We cannot change history, and in this case, church history. Drunkenness was an issue all the way back to Abraham, so the question begs, again, what is best? Why would we not choose what is best? There is no argument for alcohol consumption to be the "best" for anyone, unless to drink anything else would bring illness to one's body. That simply isn't the case in America, nor in other industrialized nations. Culture cannot be ignored, and while the American culture drinks, by tradition, large segments of the churched culture, historically, does not. Do we want to change this tradition and adapt to popular culture? As DeLand asks, do we not desire to maintain the highest standards, rather than walking the line? If we desire to walk the line, then we have an attitude issues. For, does Christ Himself not represent "a better way to live?" Freedom and liberty in Him should encourage personal holiness; the desire to be the best we can be in Christ, rather than resisting authority and crying for liberty. If we abuse the freedom and liberties His grace offers us, then we have a deeper problem, perhaps one of rebellion.
In his book Celebration of Discipline, Richard Foster writes a chapter discussing the corporate discipline of guidance. He writes that Scripture must pervade and penetrate all our thinking and acting…that there must be the outward authority of Scripture, but also the inward authority of the Holy Spirit. So, while consumption of alcohol may not be explicitly prohibited in Scripture, an attitude of rebellion certainly is. Why would we insist upon our "right" to drink, using Scripture's lack of prohibition as a license, unless we have a root of rebellion within us? If we care about the greater good, and it is certain that "drinking", as defined by culture in America, does not end up in the greater good, then why would the church not choose to avoid it? Certainly, the Bible is clear, as we all agree, on avoiding drunkenness, as well as the behaviors that generally accompany misuse of alcohol. If we choose to abstain from alcohol, it is certain that we will never become drunk!
However misguided some of the temperance movements may have been--and certainly, some were severely so--the roots of such movements often grew with those who had experienced tribulation because of the harmful effects of alcoholism (Carrie Nation's first husband was an alcoholic, for instance). Social unrest and crime and poverty became associated with misuse of alcohol, historically, and so, as it often does, a movement for change began.
I can agree that the Church should lead the way in social change. And in my opinion, that is the point of this article, and the financial blog (which addresses so many heart issues, through the venue of money matters). Change must happen, and it must happen within the Church! If the Church were more effective, then perhaps political inroads would not be the usual pathway to such change, or perhaps, such paths are marked by history and before our time. Still, how can the Church be effective, if the Church has no better record than the unchurched? Families still break up, divorce is rampant, financial destruction and bankruptcy exists, teen pregnancy, immodesty/promiscuity…alcoholism and other addictions are just as prevalent within the Church as outside of it. And with the cultural shifts a new millenium brings, the Church accepts these social problems as the norm, often choosing to look the other way, rather than addressing them and teaching on them.
Therefore, in addressing these issues, I would ask, how can we-- as Christians--NOT use the Bible to answer arguments such as these? 2 Timothy 3:16 deals with this, as do other verses. The NT is full of letters written to churches; fledgling churches, full of folks who needed guidance, who fought amongst themselves, who were Gentiles without the historical Law to teach them. We are not all that different today.
But, by teaching acceptance, and even moderation, we the Church, leave the back door open. We cannot say who will fall down the path of alcoholism rather than moderation. But we can say with certainty, that some will. This is true, even in countries where true alcoholism is less prevalent, due to moderation. There are still some who become addicts and cannot control it. This was true in biblical days as well, as is illustrated throughout the Old Testament and the New Testament, by various accounts and warnings. So abstinence becomes simply the best choice, if not a Biblical mandate.
Furthermore, when a nation is founded for the purpose of religious freedom, how can that nation fully separate politics and religion? Government was set up in order to further the development of a nation which began for religion (and in the case of America, Christianity). Is it not a wheel of sorts, with one end constantly chasing the other? Ironically, the enmeshment is exactly what our Founders wished to avoid.
In addition to political fighting, then, the prohibition movement of America, also involved inter-denominational warring within the Christian and/or Roman Catholic churches. And so, we are back to the varied interpretations of the Bible.
Keep in mind, of the "alcohol in moderation" nations:
An article briefly discussing alcoholism in France, one of the top 10 nations for alcohol consumption:
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=14713
Similar reports from Germany, another country on the top 10 list. And it may be, that because alcohol consumption is more socially acceptable, in public and with younger drinkers involved, the social problems stemming from alcoholism are less recognized. Or more tolerated. Or both! As well, it is clear that traffic deaths due to drunkenness continues to rank highly in these countries, as does health care crisis due to overconsumption. One couldn't argue that alcohol certainly leads to addiction with disastrous results in Russia, among other countries. Absolute and total destruction of manhood, of families, and so on.
One certainty that cannot be ignored: if we practice abstinence, alcoholism will never be a problem. There will be no alcohol-related health issues, no drunk driving deaths, and so on. The social dysfunction attributed to alcohol consumption and/or alcoholism would cease to exist. We can break the curse handed down through generations; the curse that science confirms has genetic links. To teach appropriate consumption as a social norm seems as harmful as teaching appropriate illegal drug usage.
Which leads to the deeper issue, and that is, those who seek to abuse a substance, will. Those with uncontrolled addictive natures, will find another source to feed their addictions. To drink or not to drink simply does not reach the root issue. However, I would still say that choosing "not" to drink remains a more desirous stance.
My apologies--in my last comment, I should have referred to the inner church fighting as between "Protestant" denominations themselves, as well as with Roman Catholics, rather than "Christian" and Roman Catholics, as the latter is not mutually exclusive.
Once posted, obviously, I cannot edit my comment submission.
Post a Comment