How Evangelicals Lost Their Way on Alcohol

Patheos ^ | January 12, 2011 | Thomas S. Kidd

[Cronos]

Ah, but some evangelicals believe that Jesus made grape juice! Here's a clip

Da ya go displaying your ignorance over the biblical use of the word “wine.” Justify your drunkeness via Jesus and the wedding! No, Jesus never drank strong drink and He didn’t create 150 gallons of rotten juice to throw a drunken party. Jesus Christ never created anything tainted, and fermented juice is tainted. What He created was good and pure — not purtrid and corrupt! It’s down right blasphemous to suggest such a thing.

Of course, this forgets that until the modern processing industry grape juice naturally became wine or vinegar. In fact even now the grape fruit juice is artificially prevented from becoming wine/vinegar with the presence of chemicals. So wine is actually more "natural" than grape juice and not "tainted" with chemicals

[Cronos]

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)."

[Fletcher J]

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!

[Jeff Winston]

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.

[topcat54]

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)

[topcat54]

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.

[Fletcher J]

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.

[Hodar]

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.

[Hodar]

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.

[Yaelle]

[RinaseaofDs]

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.

[topcat54]

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?

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.

[topcat54]

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.

[Fletcher J]

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.

[topcat54]

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?

[webstersII]

“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”.

[Cronos]

“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.

[Cronos]

"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.

[Cronos]

"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.

[topcat54]

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.