How Evangelicals Lost Their Way on Alcohol

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.

Nice to hear you say this

I do not believe that God's grace had been lifted from the Catholic Church, or that the Catholic Church wasn't part of the "true" Church in some way, prior to the Reformation (or beyond)."

I do not believe that God's grace had been lifted from the Catholic Church, or that the Catholic Church wasn't part of the "true" Church in some way, prior to the Reformation (or beyond)."

Well, we’re pretty much in agreement, really. I just think we’re talking past each other based on a denomination’s decisions vs. an individual’s actions.

Bottom line is that an “evangelical” denomination has as much right to collectively decide to abstain from drink as others have the right to choose to partake. If someone on either side argues their personal beliefs to the point of offending a fellow believer, then your issue is with him/her, not the denomination as a whole.

BTW, the article in this post is taking *evangelicals* to task for *not drinking*. Then the majority of posts are people tweaking evangelicals for not minding our own dang business... ;)

Thanks, guys, for the interesting discussion. I love a post that makes me think!

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.

People who "cannot drink a drop - without losing control" are that way for a reason, and from everything I've seen, it's generally not genetic. It has a lot to do with attitudes towareds alcohol consumption in the societies and families where they learned to consume alcohol. Did they have a model of alcohol as a recreational drug (either from their parents or peers), or did they have a healthier model of what you do (and don't do) with alcohol?

Apparently, Southern Baptists, lacking any positive model that allows for moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages, have a pretty high abuse rate (see my previous post in this thread.)

There are entire societies that have very, very low rates of alcoholism. Jewish people, for example, almost universally consume alcohol, yet the rate of alcohol problems among Jews is very low.

Bottom line is that an “evangelical” denomination has as much right to collectively decide to abstain from drink as others have the right to choose to partake.

Actually, I disagree. If a decision of a denomination violates an individual’s liberty of conscience before God, then that decision is wrong. I do not believe a denomination is free to go beyond the Word of God when making binding decisions that affect individuals.

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also. (Westminster Confession of Faith, 20:2)

If someone on either side argues their personal beliefs to the point of offending a fellow believer, then your issue is with him/her, not the denomination as a whole.

If you make that “a weaker brethren,” then I would agree. I don’t think we need to abstain for possibly offending any old believer, since the problem may be entirely with them.

That’s strange, I thought you were just on this thread lecturing us about the evils of imposing your personal beliefs on others... But now you say evangelicals Do Not have the right to follow God as we feel prompted. Who do you suggest we ignorant Baptists place in charge of our spiritual decisions, so that we quit goofing up and doing stuff you disagree with?

Your argument doesn’t change my opinion that each denomination has free-will to make their own collective decisions. (I had never thought that to be a controversial statement before) If a denomination’s basic tenets “violates an individual’s liberty of conscience before God”, then that person is clearly in the wrong denomination. No mainstream Christian denomination prevents their members from leaving for another church which better reflects their deeply-held beliefs.

Jewish people, for example, almost universally consume alcohol, yet the rate of alcohol problems among Jews is very low.

Interesting point of view; perhaps the SHAME that follows a drunkard in a Jewish community is enough of an incentive to keep people with a predisposition to alcoholism, from giving in to their needs.

As contrasted to Indian Reservations, where alcoholism is rampant and largely left under a constant state of 'wildly out of control'.

I'm not Baptist - but my view is simply "Alcohol served a vital purpose, at one point in time. Today, it's sole purpose is intoxication (at some level) - something that many people can control and manage - and something that others choose to let govern their lives.

Why would one invite disaster that can destroy their lives, their marriage, their job, career and livelihood?" Seems like a bargain that may gain a temporary hour or two of bliss - and potentially lead to a lifetime of dispair.

You are free to make your choice; please respect me and allow me the same courtesy.

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.

You do realize, I assume - that you are a statistical 'flyer'. For whatever reason, you have a pretty unique immunity to Nicotine addiction. Now many people have this ability.

For example, I have a natural immunity to Poison Ivy and Poison Oak. Very few people can do what I do - without some severe consequences.

So, I count myself lucky in this regard - I know what I can tolerate with impunity, is very dangerous to others. So, while you can enjoy a cigar or cigarette - count yourself as blessed - as very few people can do what you do.

One man pees his pants

Another insists, as a result, we must all start wearing diapers.

You say that the introduction of alcohol into the family is never a positive thing?

Tell that to the families of Italy, who for generations have been vitners. It was the monks of Europe that sent vines over to California that saved the wine industry in Europe from botrytis and other vine diseases.

It’s been an efficient way of transporting and exchanging value for centuries.

Anything can be abused, and we know that somethings must be avoided. Alcohol is something that must be used with judgement. It is not in itself evil.

Actually, I’m not saying that for individual Christians. They are free to do anything not forbidden in the Word of God as their conscience allows (Rom. 14:23).

On the other hand, denominations (pastors, teachers, elders, etc) are not permitted for bind the consciences of individuals in matters of adiaphora wrt the Word of God. Smoking and drinking in moderation, for example, are adiaphora. Church leaders, regardless of their intent, may not bind an individual on these matters.

You do realize, I assume - that you are a statistical 'flyer'.

I guess, but it must run in my family and the folks I hang with because none of us are “addicted” as far as I can tell. I think moderation tends to overcome the “addiction” issue.

Then the logical end to your argument is that we must all be our own denomination, refusing to compromise with any other Christian on any matter of indifference.

People are capable of weighing the benefits of being a Christian loner against that of joining a group with which they agree 95% of the time. And if the other 5% is troubling, then that person can either compromise in order not to be a stumbling block to a brother (entirely Biblical), or else seek a new church which agrees with them on that matter of indifference.

Then the logical end to your argument is that we must all be our own denomination, refusing to compromise with any other Christian on any matter of indifference.

It doesn't appear you are getting the gist of my comment. It is generally unnecessary for a denomination to place across the board requirements on its members that cannot be supported from the Word of God. Denominations restricting the liberty of its people is not much different than governments restricting its members. There's something about leaders on a power trip that's common to all organizations.

Besides, name an occasion where compromise on a matter of indifference is necessary and needs to be defined at a denominational level?

“If a decision of a denomination violates an individual’s liberty of conscience before God, then that decision is wrong”

Well stated.

People are always trying to add more requirements for us to live up to — all for “our own good”.

“There are entire societies that have very, very low rates of alcoholism” —> in my opinion, that is also dependent on country. I think if you compare in the 19th century Jewish communities across Europe, the rates of drunkeness may have been higher in the east rather than the west.

"As contrasted to Indian Reservations, where alcoholism is rampant and largely left under a constant state of 'wildly out of control'."

My two cents -- if you notice, alcoholism is high among societies that were conquered by other societies that were higher along in "societal development" (by societal development I don't mean a sense of morality but rather a sense of rules, regulations how to live together in large communities especially towns and cities without killing each other).

For example, alcoholism is rampant among native Americans, Aborigines and South African non-Zulu/Xhosa blacks, while it is lower among Mayas, Maoris, Zulus and the same or lesser rate than Europeans/North Americans in India, South-East Asia, China, etc.

I read it somewhere that the reason for this is a sense of emasculation by the males in these societies -- when a more developed society came along, the males found themselves thrown out of their roles as providers and protectors and life seemed worthless.

You find the same among Eastern Europeans before and after communism. I see alcoholism in Poland for instance (and I'm not Polish, just living here) as pretty restricted to those who lived under communism. Wodka was the way to keep the people drunk and pliable and stop them from rioting. And life under communism was devoid of much joy, so drink seemed an escape.

"wine exists for one reason and one reason only - for the taste of wine and the alcohol it containS"

I dispute the One reason -- you enumerated two, the taste and the alcohol. The same for beer

Spirits on the other hand I think in my humble opinion are just for the alcohol.

Spirits on the other hand I think in my humble opinion are just for the alcohol.

Perhaps you’re not drinking the right spirits. Whether one chooses wine, beer, or spirits, it’s all a matter of taste, aesthetically speaking.

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.