"Not only are more women drinking alcohol, so are more evangelicals"
- 48 views
I don’t want to critique the article or the author’s practice, but I will mention that the author provides little (if any) biblical support for her position, other than assuming that the authors she quotes are correct.
But what really concerns me about the article is the fact that she acknowledges that even a little alcohol influences and alter’s one’s personality: “It [drinking wine in moderation] means friends around the table, laughing and sharing stories. It means loved ones lingering longer, and a slower pace of conversation and time. And it means there is a reason to celebrate this beautiful life that we’ve been given.”
Is it really possible biblically to be “under the influence” of alcohol without being “drunk with wine?” And if so, where is that line crossed … from being “under the influence” and not drunk … to being “under the influence” and drunk? How much must wine affect our abilities, perceptions, and personality before we are biblically drunk?
Nobody I’ve spoken with about this subject has been able to answer that question.
Ken Fields
It seems that if the use of say, NyQuil, is acceptable at all, there must be a difference between the use of any alcohol and being drunk. Now, where that point may be (and how hard it is to find/recognize/measure) is for others to debate, and that debate has been quite extensive, both here and elsewhere. The very existence of that big debate is probably why you’ve never gotten a really good answer to that question, and likely why many in the abstention/prohibition camp have their position — “if you don’t drink at all, then you won’t cross that line.”
Dave Barnhart
I was shocked by some of the comments in the CT article:
- “a culture of drinking regularly to cope with life—and joking about it—has sprung up, especially amongst women.” (emphasis mine!)
- “Amid our joking and antics, we rarely ask ourselves or each other: How much is too much? How often is too often? …”
- “Wine goes down easy, and when I’m stressed, it feels good”
- “we’re also drinking to de-stress, unwind, have a nightly ritual, stop anxiety, or for no reason at all.”
In response to Ken Fields who asked: “Is it really possible biblically to be “under the influence” of alcohol without being “drunk with wine?”
My response (and not from personal experience): The people who have one drink with a meal are not likely to be “under the influence”
I don’t think there’s any concrete or universal way of answering your question. I believe that individual believers have to decide based on their convictions and physiology. So people should completely abstain, some can have one drink and some can have a few. The important thing is to be in control of yourself….there isn’t an arbitrary line….that’s why it’s liberty and not law.
I compare this issue to many other issues of liberty. For instance, what movie ratings should a Christian watch? Some have argued that only “G” or “PG” are acceptable. Obviously, many of us would question the sanity of drawing an absolute line here. Another example concerns music. How do we define conservative music? Some have made an arbitrary distinction between emphasis on 1st and 3rd beat as opposed to 2nd and 4th. My point is that issues of liberty don’t have easy answers. Any attempt to over-regulate liberty results in either legalism or absurdity.
May Christ Be Magnified - Philippians 1:20 Todd Bowditch
[dcbii]Without taking sides on the wisdom of moderate drinking of alcohol, I’d have to ask this — if your argument is that even a little alcohol influences one’s personality, and you don’t believe it possible to be “under the influence” without being drunk, where does that leave even the use of alcohol for medicinal purposes (what Paul told Timothy to do)? It seems that if your argument were correct, Paul would be telling Timothy to sin, since any influence would be = drunk.
It seems that if the use of say, NyQuil, is acceptable at all, there must be a difference between the use of any alcohol and being drunk. Now, where that point may be (and how hard it is to find/recognize/measure) is for others to debate (and that debate has been quite extensive, both here and elsewhere).
Dave,
All medicines influence the one who is partaking. They must in order to be effective. I’m not arguing against Paul’s instruction to Timothy; in fact, I believe Paul’s instruction to use alcohol medicinally demonstrates that even moderate amounts of alcohol put someone under the influence. The question is, how much must one be under the influence in order to be drunk?
And none of us would argue against the use of sedatives for surgical or medicinal purposes, but where is the biblical wisdom in placing oneself under the influence of a sedative (alcohol) for the purpose of coping or escaping or slowing the pace of conversation or time. Have we so lost our ability to enjoy God and one another that we need a stimulant or sedative in order to do so effectively?
Ken Fields
[Jim]I was shocked by some of the comments in the CT article:
- “a culture of drinking regularly to cope with life—and joking about it—has sprung up, especially amongst women.” (emphasis mine!)
- “Amid our joking and antics, we rarely ask ourselves or each other: How much is too much? How often is too often? …”
- “Wine goes down easy, and when I’m stressed, it feels good”
- “we’re also drinking to de-stress, unwind, have a nightly ritual, stop anxiety, or for no reason at all.”
In response to Ken Fields who asked: “Is it really possible biblically to be “under the influence” of alcohol without being “drunk with wine?”
My response (and not from personal experience): The people who have one drink with a meal are not likely to be “under the influence”
I quote from the article: The Bible “presents alcoholic drinks as an indicator and facilitator of human and divine relationships.”
Ken Fields
Right. And I’m saying that Paul’s instruction to Timothy means that *some* alcohol use must be possible without getting to that point. That’s all my argument was saying. I don’t need to come up with a “wise” amount (which, as was pointed out, is not a simple number) to know that any amount at all clearly must not be the same as drunkenness, which is always wrong.
I think we would agree that “needing” an altered state to experience life would be a problem, since we should need nothing but the filling of the Spirit.
Dave Barnhart
Ken,
Thanks for pointing out the shocking statement in the CT article: the Bible “presents alcoholic drinks as an indicator and facilitator of human and divine relationships.” Ephesians 5:18 says the exact opposite. It was the pagan religions of their day that saw alcohol as an inducement to worship. This is why Paul contrasts the influence of alcohol with the filling of the Spirit in order to do the will of God.
Pastor Mike Harding
I think we have to be careful here to some degree. We criticize alcohol for having influence, yet most Christians drink coffee to also induce a physiological effect on their body. And the SS teacher often jokes at the beginning of Sunday School stating, “You better watch out, I haven’t had my coffee yet” (indicating both an addictive element as well as the absence of the physiological element to help hype them up in the morning for their class.
We criticize alcohol because it was used in pagan ceremonies, yet the purpose of chocolate was for an offering in pagan ceremonies. I think we do the argument a disservice when we stretch things to fit our own perspective. I think we “feel” that alcohol is bad, there are a few warnings about it in the Bible, and therefore we need to stretch things to accommodate this warning.
I am an abstainer and would encourage other people to abstain, but I am not sure why we need to stretch the argument so much. Everyone will be impacted differently from alcohol. We should not draw lines where there are no lines. Why can’t it be as simple as the point where someone can no longer make wise choices (or the right choices). Obviously the government has drawn a specified line as to what this means in terms of blood alcohol level, but we know that it can start sooner than the line specified.
I haven’t read the CT article yet - not sure that I will - but it based on some of these quotes that Jim noted makes it sound like the real problems with it are hermeneutical/exegetical, not over whether or not wine is acceptable. And it sounds, as is usually the case, like there are people who are drinking ‘because they can’ or ‘because it makes me feel good’, and not thinking any harder about it than that, which is actually a pretty sad indictment.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[dcbii]I think we would agree that “needing” an altered state to experience life would be a problem, since we should need nothing but the filling of the Spirit.
I would agree, yet I believe that many Christians use coffee in same way. They need their coffee in the morning to wake up, not be a grumpy person, feel good, to socialize…. Some of the same arguments they use against alcohol. Yet coffee is okay to joke about from the pulpit, and the whole congregation laughs, but we mention the word alcohol and people are ostracized.
Couldn’t resist reading it -
So then, are more women, specifically Christian women, celebrating? Yes, but we’re also drinking to de-stress, unwind, have a nightly ritual, stop anxiety, or for no reason at all. There is a fine line, in these circumstances, between drinking to enjoy, and drinking to cope. The numbing of our senses to mask displeasure isn’t just unhealthy, it’s unholy. My prayer for each of us as we go forward is to make wise choices, and to be honest with ourselves. Ask ourselves, “Why are you drinking?” If we don’t like the response…maybe we put that glass down.
This is a good point, and I’m glad she made it.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Couldn’t resist reading it -
So then, are more women, specifically Christian women, celebrating? Yes, but we’re also drinking to de-stress, unwind, have a nightly ritual, stop anxiety, or for no reason at all. There is a fine line, in these circumstances, between drinking to enjoy, and drinking to cope. The numbing of our senses to mask displeasure isn’t just unhealthy, it’s unholy. My prayer for each of us as we go forward is to make wise choices, and to be honest with ourselves. Ask ourselves, “Why are you drinking?” If we don’t like the response…maybe we put that glass down.
This is a good point, and I’m glad she made it.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I am curious as to whether anyone can find any reference to the church preaching abstinence prior to the 1830’s. I have dug around for years as to the phenomenon of abstinence, and all I can find is that Christians drank it up until about the 1830’s where social reforms began to be put in place to curtail its use and those reforms were associated with abstinence.
As an FYI, this is what the Puritans defined as being under the influence. They drank a lot of alcohol, so it seems that they were mostly okay until they got to:
“By drunkenness it is understood a person that either lisps or falters in his speech by reason of overmuch drink or that staggers in his going or that vomits by reason of excessive drinking, or cannot follow his calling.”
[dgszweda]I think we have to be careful here to some degree. We criticize alcohol for having influence, yet most Christians drink coffee to also induce a physiological effect on their body. And the SS teacher often jokes at the beginning of Sunday School stating, “You better watch out, I haven’t had my coffee yet” (indicating both an addictive element as well as the absence of the physiological element to help hype them up in the morning for their class.
We criticize alcohol because it was used in pagan ceremonies, yet the purpose of chocolate was for an offering in pagan ceremonies. I think we do the argument a disservice when we stretch things to fit our own perspective. I think we “feel” that alcohol is bad, there are a few warnings about it in the Bible, and therefore we need to stretch things to accommodate this warning.
I am an abstainer and would encourage other people to abstain, but I am not sure why we need to stretch the argument so much. Everyone will be impacted differently from alcohol. We should not draw lines where there are no lines. Why can’t it be as simple as the point where someone can no longer make wise choices (or the right choices). Obviously the government has drawn a specified line as to what this means in terms of blood alcohol level, but we know that it can start sooner than the line specified.
I really am!
It’s just that I grow so weary of hearing the argument that drinking in moderation has no effect on the human body or mind. That’s just nonsense. Several have tried to convince me that alcohol doesn’t influence the body or mind until one is actually drunk! While the article has some rather severe shortcomings exegetically and theologically, at least the author admits that alcohol influnces (and even alters the behavior of) the one partaking—even in moderate amounts!
That’s all I’m sayin’…..
Ken Fields
Discussion