Convictions and Complexities about Drinking
Image
Today I am going to take a stab at applying convictions and preferences to the subject of drinking. Let’s begin with convictions.
Convictions in General
A conviction is a belief or value we embrace as a crucial part of what we stand for and who we are. It is very different from a preference—or merely assenting to a belief or value.
For the believer, there are two levels of conviction. The first level—the deepest level—involves biblical conviction, although some deep convictions may extend beyond the Bible (e.g., a soldier surrendering his life for our country’s freedom). Our biblical convictions should be first and foremost. Where the Bible is emphatic, we must be clear and take a firm stand. This does not mean we must demand others to take that stand, but we certainly must urge fellow believers to follow what the Word actually says. This is not necessarily what we think it says, but what it actually says.
The difference between a biblical conviction and a preference is that we would suffer loss rather than disavow our biblical convictions. It may mean we lose a job, flunk a class, or be ostracized. In some nations, it means imprisonment or even death.
A preference, however, is something we prefer, but would not suffer for. For example, if we preferred to attend church Sunday mornings but lived in a culture where Friday was the national day off (as in a Muslim country), we could adjust and conduct church on Friday.
As our society becomes more aggressively anti-Christian, we are often disappointed to see supposed believers who (we thought had convictions) cave in. We discover that their “convictions” were actually preferences.
A lesser level of conviction involves beliefs that are not emphasized in the Bible; these are matters of conscience. Paul mandates we respect one another’s consciences in Romans 14:1-23 and I Corinthians 8:1-13.
Use of Alcohol, the Bible, and Evangelical/Fundamental History
Many Christians suggest that the Bible teaches moderation in drinking, while many others have concluded that the Bible teaches total abstinence. My suspicion is that the younger generations are more likely to embrace drinking, while the older generations oppose the idea.
Some of us choose to avoid alcohol—not because we believe it is wrong in moderation—but because it would be wrong for us. Take my case: I hail from a long line of alcoholics, including my father, uncles, and both grandfathers. I may have a genetic predisposition, so I am better off not getting into the habit.
How did abstinence and conservative evangelical/fundamental Christianity become paired together in the first place? In 1750, no Christians (to my knowledge) were against drinking in moderation. The Puritans, for example, would discuss theology while drinking ale. All churches used fermented wine for communion. How did things change?
Change began with the temperance movement. Evangelical Christians have a heritage of supporting the temperance movement of the early 20th century (that resulted in Prohibition). Because of the push against alcohol, a company named “Welch’s” began bottling unfermented grape juice—for communion use!
In addition, conservative evangelicals started rescue missions over 100 years ago—before the current secular “soup kitchens” caught on. People who have an alcoholic background are often brought down by just one drink, so our spiritual forefathers’ attempts at helping these people meant across-the-board abstinence for all church members. Some church covenants still require church members to totally abstain.
Today we battle all sorts of drug abuse, making substance abuse one of America’s premiere issues. Most people have concluded that Prohibition was a drastic mistake, and few of us are working with rehabilitated alcoholics. Like it or not, many Christians in America are now drinkers, at least on occasion. At the same time, we are completely free to abstain. We do not need to start drinking to prove with are with the times, free, or flexible!
When it comes to the Bible, alcohol use (in moderation) is the biblical example. The Greek word for unfermented wine (trux or trugia) is never used in the New Testament. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how someone could stumble over using grape juice (if that is what “wine” meant, as some claim) in Romans 14:21. A natural interpretation—and all Bible versions agree—tell us that Jesus turned the water to wine, not grape juice. We must pursue a biblical (rather than historical and agenda-driven) ethic.
Many Christians believe drinking alcohol is wrong, even in moderation. Others choose to abstain because of a logical argument (alcohol does more harm than good). Others take a moderation approach. But all of us need to be sensitive to others.
We do not allow alcohol at church events for good reason. Romans 14:21 (ESV) reads:
Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.
Sometimes we need to adjust our habits based upon those around us, but only at the time. Otherwise we would all be abstainers and all vegetarians! Consideration for those who have sincere beliefs is a good thing; this is not the same as letting people with legalistic bents bully and impose their rules upon us.
Paul is talking about “weaker brothers” who would not be upset they didn’t get their way—but would be truly hurt—and perhaps emboldened to do things that bothered their consciences.
Moderation and Christian Alcoholics
Alcoholism within the Christian world is a genuine problem. Some people are typically driven toward excesses. Others (like Native American Indians) have a biological factor that makes alcohol highly addictive.
Drunkenness is a sin. Ephesians 5:18 says, “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit” (NASB). The problem, though, is that most alcoholics (or occasional drunks) live in denial. One time, I knew a man who became so drunk he got in a fight with a fire hydrant. He lost. But he would talk about being able to “hold his liquor” and “not being drunk a day in his life.” The denial factor is strong.
Because we seem to have two polarized camps—drinking is always wrong or drinking is okay—we have failed to give real guidance to those who do drink.
So here is my attempt to do so. If you do drink, do you have to drink every single day? Or do you generally drink more than two or three drinks in a given day, or more than ten drinks a week? Are you safely within the boundaries of moderation? (For more information on defining moderation, see www.moderatedrinking.com.)
If you have a problem, you should elicit the prayer support of discreet members of our church family (like our elders, for example). There is no shame about enrolling in a treatment program or seeking Christian counseling.
All of us have our struggles; we all need the Holy Spirit to work within us through the Word, prayer, and relational involvement with our church family. Sometimes the best way to overcome sin is to focus upon loving God and loving others.
Ed Vasicek Bio
Ed Vasicek was raised as a Roman Catholic but, during high school, Cicero (IL) Bible Church reached out to him, and he received Jesus Christ as his Savior by faith alone. Ed earned his BA at Moody Bible Institute and served as pastor for many years at Highland Park Church, where he is now pastor emeritus. Ed and his wife, Marylu, have two adult children. Ed has published over 1,000 columns for the opinion page of the Kokomo Tribune, published articles in Pulpit Helps magazine, and posted many papers which are available at edvasicek.com. Ed has also published the The Midrash Key and The Amazing Doctrines of Paul As Midrash: The Jewish Roots and Old Testament Sources for Paul's Teachings.
- 652 views
I was going to post a few thoughts on my own perspective on the topic, but soon realized I had more than 500 words, so… I think maybe I’ll just post as a short article tomorrow.
But I want to say that I appreciate Ed’s tone here and the emphasis on helping believers who have come to the conclusion that some alcohol consumption is permissible for them.
I also think Ed’s summary of the history of how total abstinence became status quo among most of the old-time evangelicals and later fundamentalists is correct. Billy Sunday era revivalism along w/the temperance movement (and, interestingly, early feminism) were all part of the mix.
Rom. 14, Greek words for “unfermented wine,” wisdom angle, etc….. tomorrow.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Thanks for the article. My understanding was that the support of prohibition from “Christians” was largely coming from the modernists. Is that not true?
Is “new wine” a translation of “[new] oinos” - i.e. a beverage from newly squeezed grapes, which would have very little fermentation - certainly not even enough to give a person a buzz?
Point being that I agree the Bible does not declare 100% abstinence, but there was a preference for juice from grapes that were freshly squeezed. Why settle for what is okay (fermented) when we, in the 21st century, have access to what is best (unfermented)?
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
Alcohol Today: Abstinence in an Age of Indulgence by Peter Lumpkins
Ancient Wine and the Bible: The Case for Abstinence by Brumbelow
You may also be interested in the following article:
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-problem-with-drunk-prea…
Aaron, I look forward to your article.
David R. Brumbelow
See Acts 2: 13 for whether “new wine” was alcoholic or not. Reality is that unless extraordinary measures are taken to prevent fermentation, grape juice ferments quickly. That white powder on the skin of grapes is yeast, which occurs naturally in the air and feeds on whatever sugar is available. (this is how you get sourdough, properly—a true sourdough is not started by adding a packet of Fleishman’s to flour, water, and potato peels—you just leave the flour & water exposed to the air and it will start to bubble in a few days….it’s actually a different type of yeast that works with lactobacilli to give it that characteristic taste)
So new wine is not completely fermented—that’s why it’s also called “sweet wine”—but it definitely contained alcohol. And which was better? Well, look at Luke 5:39. The ancients preferred fully fermented (“drier”) wines, according to our Savior. Part of the attraction for old wines was also that it was pretty completely fermented and would not become vinegar if exposed to air.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Music, wine, dance, sex, food, wealth, and power are all celebrated in the Bible. They are all counted as blessings from God. We should seek out and enjoy all of the above, but in moderation, within God’s plan, and in worship of the Creator (rather than the creation).
It is true that the world, flesh, and Devil twist each of the above to abuse it, worship it, and throw it back in God’s face. It is a sin to take a blessed provision of God, and worship it, abuse it, or twist it. We all struggle with sin, but the answer is not to necessarily reject the blessing outright. The answer is to use the blessings of creation to worship the Creator (as is done in communion with wine).
There is a subgroup of Christians who, out of noble motive, attempt to distance themselves from excess and abuse by viewing some of the above as sin. Although they take this view in an effort to avoid sin, they go beyond what the Bible plainly says.
It’s worth noting that Romans 14 is specifically talking about food and drink sacrificed to idols, not just some arbitrary “stumbling block” out there. So those who would use it as a reason to compel others’ abstinence ought to be asked what idol that wine or steak was sacrificed to, and why they’re objecting to wine per Romans 14 but not that hamburger in their hand.
Sorry, but most of the time, “Romans 14” means “I am blackmailing you into giving up your freedom in Christ to support my Victorian cultural views.” It’s way past time for that to end.
Regarding the alcoholic, are we to believe that the alcoholic can drive past multiple bars, liquor stores, beer trucks, billboards, vineyards and restaurants serving/advertising alcoholic beverages every day on the way to work, but cannot handle a brother in Christ enjoying a glass of wine? Seriously?
It certainly isn’t what I’ve seen. A good friend of mine is an abstinent alcoholic, and he works as a Lutheran pastor—serves real wine every week to his congregation. He will eat meals at bars with his family—no problem. Other friends of mine noted that when they go to Mass, they tell the priest with a simple hand gesture that they are alcoholics, and the priest will provide them grape juice at Communion. They also went to company events where liquor was served with no problem.
Really, the same logic that is used to justify compelled abstinence could be used to tell a pretty young lady to disfigure herself so that her beauty would not be a stumbling block. Sorry, but that is simply not what the Scripture tells us to do. It tells us about moderation and self-control.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]It’s worth noting that Romans 14 is specifically talking about food and drink sacrificed to idols, not just some arbitrary “stumbling block” out there. So those who would use it as a reason to compel others’ abstinence ought to be asked what idol that wine or steak was sacrificed to, and why they’re objecting to wine per Romans 14 but not that hamburger in their hand.
Absolutely not true, Bert. Where on the passage is idolatry mentioned? Nowhere! It’s only assumed by interpreters who want to see it there. There are similarities with 1Cor 8-10, where idolatry is the issue, but the differences make it clear that the subject in Romans is not connected to idolatry at all.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don, historians note that the traditional sacrifices to Zeus were meat and wine, and that the temple markets were where the poor could actually afford these items. Now you can ignore this, and the obvious parallels with the passages in 1 Cor. you mentioned, but reality is that we are supposed to exegete Scripture in its historical and Biblical context.
Which means that, absent evidence to the contrary, our initial estimate ought to be that Romans 14 is talking about food offered to idols. Sorry, Don, this is really, really basic exegetical method here.
Besides, given that wine was used in Temple worship and was spoken of as a blessing from God, as was meat, and given that the Holy Spirit said “take, Peter, kill and eat” with regards to this issue, we have to assume that for Paul to even entertain the notion of abstinence from these good gifts of God, there must be a very emphatic reason.
Idolatry fits. Victorian social gospel does not.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
The burden of proof is on those who claim idolatry is the issue in Rm 14. There is not one word in the chapter that leads to that conclusion. In 1 Cor, a specific word is used that clearly designates the issue as idolatry. Romans, written layer, probably in Corinth itself, makes NO mention of any connection to idolatry. You actually have no exegetical foundation to make the connection. What you have is eisegesis, not exegesis.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Click above for largerMy own view is a hybrid B-C
Ancients had both fermented and unfermented wine.
The following article presents some, but not all, ancient methods of preserving unfermented wine:
Preserving Unfermented Wine in Bible Times
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2010/10/preserving-unfermented-wine…
Also see the article:
Ancient Wine Production and the Bible
David R. Brumbelow
Helpful article from the ESV study Bible: “Biblical Doctrine - An Overview”
(click on image for larger)
- Absolutes define the core beliefs of the Christian faith
- Convictions, while not core beliefs, may have significant impact on the health and effectiveness of the church
- Opinions are less-clear issues that generally are not worth dividing over
- Questions are currently unsettled issues.
Where an issue falls within these categories should be determined by weighing the cumulative force of at least seven considerations:
- Biblical clarity
- Relevance to the character of God
- Relevance to the essence of the gospel
- Biblical frequency and significance (how often in Scripture it is taught, and what weight Scripture places upon it)
- Effect on other doctrines
- Consensus among Christians (past and present)
- Effect on personal and church life.
These criteria for determining the importance of particular beliefs must be considered in light of their cumulative weight regarding the doctrine being considered. For instance, just the fact that a doctrine may go against the general consensus among believers (see item 6) does not necessarily mean it is wrong, although that might add some weight to the argument against it. All the categories should be considered collectively in determining how important an issue is to the Christian faith. The ability to rightly discern the difference between core doctrines and legitimately disputable matters will keep the church from either compromising important truth or needlessly dividing over peripheral issues.
- The drinking in moderation vs total abstinence would fall into the “opinion” category
- Take for example the criteria of: is there a “Consensus among Christians (past and present)”
- Fundamentalists tend to collapse the concentric circles and make everything of utmost importance.
Don, exactly why should we ignore the fact that Paul further defines why he might, or might not, eat meat or drink wine in 1 Corinthians? Or why the possibility of abstaining from meat or wine would be counter-intuitive to those who understood them as a gift?
The exegesis of difficult passages is always supposed to occur in light of other passages on the topic, and with an understanding of the culture to whom those passages were written. For example, let’s try to parse out 1 Tim. 2:15 without appealing to our knowledge of history and that culture. Do we conclude that we need to keep our wives barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, or else they be damned?
If we exclude parallel passages and a reference to their culture, that is exactly what we ought to conclude.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Discussion