“Jews don’t recognize the Messiah. Protestants don’t recognize the Pope. And Baptists don’t recognize each other in the liquor store.”
Posted on 01/12/2011 8:57:47 AM PST by Alex Murphy
In the book Fire From Heaven: Life in an English Town in the Seventeenth Century, the late Yale historian David Underdown tells a story of how the Puritans of Dorchester adopted an unusual tactic to assist the town's poor: they opened a brewery. As in many English towns of the 17th century, problems of overcrowding led many residents and their children to the edge of destitution. But the Puritans' vision of salvation was holistic: the godly would demonstrate their souls' transformation by God in good works. They would not allow their fellow families to go hungry while they had the means to do something about it. So they opened the brewhouse, using proceeds from beer sales to bring poor children to school, instruct them in the faith and in useful vocations, and give them clothes and food. The brewhouse was a wonderful success, and significantly helped to alleviate the problem of poverty in Dorchester.
Fast forward to 2011. Much has changed in some conservative Christians' view of alcohol. Far from being a tool of charity, or even a sign of God's favor, as it was to David in Psalm 104 (God brought forth "wine that maketh glad the heart of man"), many see alcohol as evil, in and of itself. Not a drop is to pass the lips of a believer.
As old-fashioned as this argument may sound to outsiders, Southern Baptists are at one another's throats about it yet again. (Readers should note that I am a Baptist.) Shortly after Christmas, when the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina proposed to "study" whether alcohol consumption could be permissible for church leaders, anti-alcohol Baptists erupted with indignation, insisting that teetotalism is an essential Baptist distinctive. Indeed, the Southern Baptist Convention in 2006 made "total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages" the official policy of the denomination.
Obviously the Puritans of Dorchester did not believe that Christians could not take a drink; no Puritans believed that, contrary to our stereotype of them as history's great killjoys. When did American Christians adopt a stance not just against drunkenness (which is clearly prohibited in scripture), but against drinking per se? The notion of total abstinence from alcohol emerged in the early 19th century, in the midst of new reform movements associated with the Second Great Awakening.
Teetotalism responded to a serious evil, alcohol abuse, which was more prevalent in antebellum America than it is today. Historians estimate that Americans probably drank about five gallons of alcohol per capita per year in those days, more than double today's rate. This was partly because alcoholic beverages were often safer and more nourishing than other options, such as unreliable water supplies. But the high demand also reflected a tendency among many Americans—men, in particular—to overindulge. Drunkenness and alcoholism produced its typical fruits, including domestic violence and poverty.
The temperance movement reacted to a real social and medical problem. We should not dismiss it as a product of Victorian prudishness. But then a focus on reducing alcohol abuse morphed into the conviction that it was a sin for any person to take a drink, period. This was a simpler approach, but it is not biblical.
Whatever teetotalers may say, they cannot get around the fact that Jesus turned water into wine, and that Paul told Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:23 to stop drinking water alone, but to use wine to help his stomach ailments. (Teetotalers will respond that these beverages had very low alcohol content, an assertion not revealed in scripture, either.) A strict ban on alcohol for all Christians is a position of recent vintage (pun intended), with almost no precedent in church history before the 1800s.
Of course, nothing would prevent any Christian, as a matter of conscience, from voluntarily abstaining. There are good reasons to do this: a history of alcoholism in one's family, a wish to maintain one's reputation before others who might object to drinking, or a simple distaste for alcoholic drinks. I have a number of Christian friends who abstain for one or more of these reasons.
But imposing abstinence from alcohol as a non-negotiable behavioral standard for all Christians is a moral requirement unknown to scripture. It also causes unnecessary fights among conservative Christians. Evangelicals—and Baptists more than anyone—will no doubt continue to squabble about these kinds of non-essential issues. And to the extent that they do, they will communicate that the Christian faith is mainly good for fostering pickiness and backbiting. Their churches will also go on losing members. Personally, I'd rather throw in my lot with the loving, charitable, and beer-peddling Puritans of Dorchester.
....Obviously the Puritans of Dorchester did not believe that Christians could not take a drink; no Puritans believed that, contrary to our stereotype of them as history's great killjoys. When did American Christians adopt a stance not just against drunkenness (which is clearly prohibited in scripture), but against drinking per se? The notion of total abstinence from alcohol emerged in the early 19th century, in the midst of new reform movements associated with the Second Great Awakening.
I never understood probhibition by christians.. What was Jesus first miracle?
Anyone who believes that the Bible expressly prohibits the consumption of alcohol does not understand their Bible. It merely prohibits drunkeness. Not drinking is fine if that’s your choice, but to create a commandment where none exists...well the Lord has said “teachers” will be held to a higher standard in Heaven...
What gets me is how some are so willing to lie about the history of alcohol including its relevance in the Bible simply because they can’t handle their own weaknesses. IMHO, it is about control, nothing more, nothing less.
A person who abstains will never become the drunk that abuses his kids.
And didn’t the Puritans have some other problems??? I mean, these are not the people to emulate, are they.?
One must also consider the technology of the day, and the important role alcohol played in daily life.
Consider:
* No refrigeration - cooking with wine/beer helped cover up the smell of meat that while still’good’ was beginning to smell and taste ‘ripe’.
* Mixing a little wine in the water, killed both parasites as well as other bugs that could cause disease. Bear in mind, a city may get water from the river; but just a few miles upstream cattle crossed the river - adding contamination to the town’s drinking water.
* Dressing a wound with bandages soaked in beer/wine had an anticeptic effect.
* Washing clothes and bedding with alcohol to kill lice and fleas
* A little ‘buzz’ helps you sleep through the night, ignoring misquitoe, flea and bed-bug bites
* Wine/beer store very well, where water goes stagnant quickly.
PlaceMark
If a person has inner demons that gives him or her the propensity to abuse his children, he will do it whether he is sober or drunk.
But the day I saw that my in-laws bought a margarita maker, I breathed a sigh of relief.
“...well the Lord has said “teachers” will be held to a higher standard in Heaven...”.
People actually teach drinking?
;-)
Prohibition was, at one time, a logical step to address alcohol abuse. At the time widespread availability of safe drinking water and other beverages was not common. And, for certain people who just can't drink in moderation, it is still useful.
But to insist one must abstain from alcohol 100% to be considered Christian is a dogma no less than some of those who claim one must adhere to the majority view of the Trinity (or insert your other favorite dogma here) in order to be considered a Christian.
Jesus Christ alone will determine who passes the Christian test, not any organized church or extreme fundies who appoint themselves to that role.
“A person who abstains will never become the drunk that abuses his kids.”
I know a teetotaler that beat his wife to death with a fire poker. Deacon in a Church.
It’s irrelevant to the discussion.
People are assholes or they aren’t.
1 Timothy 5:23
Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.
Alcohol lowers your inhibitions, so if you have a pre-disposal to be violent, your ability to NOT act on your violent tendencies is lowered. You need not look very far to see that abused children report that their beatings usually took place when Daddy had been drinking.
People CHANGE when they are drunk. People will freely do things when they are drunk - that they would never seriosly consider doing when they are sober.
I grew up in a teetotaling home, a Baptist one. I didn’t have to worry about drunkenness, but I found a false sense of purity and righteousness in the church because of what they avoided, like dancing, etc. I eventually found my way to the calvinists who are more closely aligned to the Puritans; I am much more comfortable there. No, they are not perfect, but I value their emphasis on looking within and being aware of inner sinfulness rather than avoiding certain practices as a path to holiness. Their emphasis is on God Himself through Christ rather than their own actions as the way to holiness.
They would take out four small saucers and put a live worm in each one as the kids crowded around. Each saucer was filled with a different beverage, plain water, milk, a fruit or vegetable juice and whiskey. The worms in the other three saucers would swim around while the one in the whiskey saucer would shrivel and die.
The lady would then ask the kids what the demonstration proved. In nearly every case, they would respond it would show whiskey was bad for you.
When the WCTU came to my Dad's class, however, a little boy in the back raised his hand and answered "Drink plenty of whiskey and you'll never have to worry about having worms."
Jesus Christ alone will determine who passes the Christian test, not any organized church or extreme fundies who appoint themselves to that role.
Do you yourself hold to the "majority view", or to some other view?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.