See Gentry, God Gave Wine: What the Bible Says About Alcohol
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.
Why should you always invite two baptists on a fishing trip?
Because if you only invite one, he’ll drink all your beer.
See Gentry, God Gave Wine: What the Bible Says About Alcohol
Like all things, it’s bad when done to excess. There’s no evidence that moderate tobacco use is any more harmful than any other thing done in moderation.
Well, Jesus drank wine, his disciples drank wine, pretty much every Prophet in the Bible drank wine. So, one would think that the answer to that question is a resounding 'No'.
However, we are also told not to drink to the point of drunkeness. I think, personally, that the reasons that wine was popular back in biblical times had more to do with technolgy at that point in time, than anything else. Refrigeration, anti-biotics, insect repellant, food handling, sanitation, ect - have removed the NEED for wine (alcohol).
So, in today's world - wine exists for one reason and one reason only - for the taste of wine and the alcohol it contains. Some people are able to drink a glass or 2 at a meal, and stop without developing an addiction. Other people cannot drink a drop - without losing control. So, I can see where a religous group could opt to tell it's members "You don't NEED this, this can harm both you and your family - so stay away from it".
The sin, is in the eye of the beholder. IMHO, the serous NEED for alcohol has been removed by modern technology.
Well said, marron! I’m a Southern Baptist and a non-drinker, but I don’t worry about what other Christians do as long as they truly strive to live a Christ-like life.
Baptist doctrine is against the consumption of alcohol. Although scripture doesn’t *require* abstinance from alcohol, there’s nothing wrong with that choice. Christian denominations make collective decisions on how their members should act all the time, although it seems only rarely do they interpret scripture to be *less* permissive than what can be justified...
For example, meatless Fridays for Catholics. That’s not required in the scriptures, but is done as a reminder of Christ’s sacrifice. (someone correct me if I’m wrong) I don’t do it, but I think that’s great. Maybe this Baptist will start! :)
Far easier said, than done....
... A moderate use of tobacco and heroin is almost always impossible. Only 10% of the people who start to use tobacco become moderate users. The same goes for heroin. In the case of alcohol, 80-90% of the users keep it moderate. Only between 10% and 20% of the people who start to use alcohol will become heavy drinkers. There are no such numbers known about cocaine.
The Pastor’s wife asked us if we could bring in some of our own ornaments to help decorate the church for Christmas. Among other things, I brought in a lovely picture of Mary and the baby Jesus. The Pastor’s wife took one look at it and declared it was “too Catholic looking” and that the Pastor would not allow it in the church. The Pastor is also of the belief that the “wine” Jesus made from water was grape juice because wine is fermented , rotten, and Jesus would never make anything unpure.
May be true, but I would like to see the study and definition of "moderate" wrt tobacco.
And what percentage of the population is considered overweight/obese?
Like the Pharisees. :-)
True enough, but the Pharisees are an extreme example. Extreme & inflexible self-denial isn’t much of a religious problem in today’s world; I think we have quite a way to go before that would be a concern... heh
Bottom line is that I presume someone isn’t just trying to bend the scriptures to their liking when their interpretation is contrary to their own worldly desires.
For instance, one man says he feels led to give 25% gross pay to the church, and another says he’s studied the scriptures and clearly God only requires a 10% tithe - of net pay. The second man may be absolutely correct, but most folks would automatically presume the first is acting in good faith.
“There’s no evidence that moderate tobacco use is any more harmful than any other thing done in moderation. “
I agree. The issue is when so-called conservatives try to create a culture that is based on their view of how people should behave.
Most of them are just trying to keep certain influences away from their children, so they use the Bible to beat people over the head. But what they need to do is learn how to teach their children right from wrong and train them up to have good character. Outlawing stuff won’t work; if they just want to outlaw stuff they would probably enjoy living in a Muslim country.
“Like the Pharisees.”
White-washed tombs full of dead men’s bones. . . . .
Heh. That’s funny. I’ve been on both sides of that river.
As long as the first man is speaking for himself and not trying to impose his beliefs on others, that’s fine.
That’s usually not the case when we get into the matters of drink, smoke, dancing, and other social “vices,” (Dare I mention rock music?) Folks are quick to exclude (or even include) based on abstaining from such activities. Many churches and denominations even pride themselves on such strictures. Usually the same churches and denominations that go whole hog (pardon the pun) when the church picnic rolls around.
“As long as the first man is speaking for himself and not trying to impose his beliefs on others, that’s fine. “
Yep, and that’s usually the issue, some person is abusing their authority by telling people how to live. Or you have someone bragging about their righteousness because they ‘don’t drink, dance, smoke, cuss, chew, or hang out with those who do’.
“Dare I mention rock music?”
Oh, man, the Evil Rock Music. I had forgotten about that one. ‘Bring your rock music CDs to the bonfire in back of the church so they can be destroyed.’
“As long as the first man is speaking for himself and not trying to impose his beliefs on others, that’s fine. “
Yep, and that’s usually the issue, some person is abusing their authority by telling people how to live. Or you have someone bragging about their righteousness because they ‘don’t drink, dance, smoke, cuss, chew, or hang out with those who do’.
“Dare I mention rock music?”
Oh, man, the Evil Rock Music. I had forgotten about that one. ‘Bring your rock music CDs to the bonfire in back of the church so they can be destroyed.’
This is really the same argument that the first century church had about eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols. Here’s what Paul had to say about it:
“So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, won’t he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.” (1st Corinthians 8:4-13)
It’s pretty obvious from this passage that eating meat sacrificed to idols, or by extension, drinking alcohol, isn’t inherently sinful. The only sin is when we cause a brother to stumble — and I don’t think, from the context, that Paul meant ‘brother’ in the vague, generic sense of the word — I think he meant a specific person. So, if I offer a drink to my alcoholic friend, then yes, it’s a sin. If I have a hot buttered rum in my own home on a cold winter night, or a glass of wine with dinner, it’s not an issue at all.
Moderate use of tobacco? I smoke between 5 and 10 cigarettes per day. Less if I’m really busy, or absorbed in a book.
I recently quit for 8 months, with no difficulty. I missed the flavor, so I started again, but have never felt the need to smoke more than I do.
Claiming that Jesus turned water into only grape juice denies part of the miracle. Certainly, transforming matter is miraculous; but to me, changing water to wine signifies Jesus’ mastery over time itself, because natural fermentation takes time.
I enjoy an occasional cigar, or pipe, and I also enjoy rolling my own cigarettes. I don’t smoke much in the winter because I do it mostly outdoors. In the summer 2-3 cigarettes a day is average. But I can go for weeks without.
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.