Why Christians Need a Better Debate About Alcohol

Cue David and Bert. It’s now 1004 PST; how long will it take … ?

For the discussion about wine to go where Carter suggests, the “no wine” faction would need to capitulate and admit that when Scripture discusses wine, it generally does refer to the fermented juice of the grape, and that it’s acceptable to enjoy it in some amount. I’d welcome it if it occurred, as quite frankly the “two wines” theories promoted by David and others do infringe on important doctrines like the perspicuity of Scripture, the First Fundamental, and Sola Scriptura, as well as basic exegetical and hermeneutic principles of consistency of translation. That said, the faction has a tremendous amount invested in the theories they promote, so I don’t see a wholesale capitulation at any point in the near future.

The article is also correct that some wines today, even among the non-fortified wines, are “heady” in a way that their European counterparts generally are not. So it is entirely likely that people are continuing to do what they’ve done for the past 400 years or so—pick the strains of yeast that develop the product best. I remember reading about 30 years back in a book by Michael Jackson (the beer expert, not the singer) that the Danish or Dutch beer industry was kick-started by a man who brought a bottle of German or Czech yeast to the country, thus greatly improving it.

Regarding the central premiss, agreed fully that among those who believe it’s OK to drink in moderation, the subject should go to how one ought to drink if one chooses to do so, and a big part of that is “dosage.” I can see three basic categories that one would follow. The first is how Scripture describes drunkenness—the staggering and “feeling no pain” Proverbs 23 definition that starts at around 0.15 BAC (about 8-9 drinks for a 200 lb man), the Romans 13 not allowed to drive level of 0.08-0.10 (about 4-6 drinks for 200 lb man), or quite frankly the level at which the amount of calories consumed would qualify as gluttony. 4-6 drinks is 600-1200 kCal, or a fourth to half of required daily calories for that same man. If you’re drinking sweet mixed drinks with umbrellas, it’s even “richer” that way.

(notice the lowest danger threshold is really the gluttony threshold, which matches, ahem, the really big health risk that most fundagelicals face)

One thing that Carter misses, though, is the need to understand why and how people drink different liquors—put gently, the person who sips Scotch, good reds, or craft beers is generally far less likely to get drunk than the person with cheap vodka, Boone’s Farm, or PBR in the fridge. Understanding the different beverages, and understanding the “why” of why someone might enjoy one and not the other, is key.

Here we go again. The same ol’ merry-go-round of alcohol vs. gluttony vs. (insert other Yeah, But argument here).

I know I’ll get flack for this, but whatever … …

I think alot / most Christians when addressing the issue of alcohol are somewhere along the spectrum of simply looking for an excuse to being outright lazy in their Biblical (or otherwise) study of this subject.

This subject is like discussing politics. Seems like everyone has their own version of the truth and no one will convince them otherwise.

It’s entirely legitimate to say that there needs to be a different debate among those who reject total abstinence. But this is a distinct question from whether there should be consumption at all.

The quoted portion is tantamount to saying “Let’s just declare victory for the non-abstinence position and have a different debate.” But the question of “how much” automatically excludes all the total abstainers, so… this is an entirely different conversation.

And I think not a very controversial one either. Virtually all non-abstainers believe in avoiding drunkenness. The rest is fine tuning.

A debate is not “better” if you decide to ignore one position entirely. It’s just a different debate.

I understand what you’re saying, Aaron and in the context of SI, I agree. But Joe uses “abstainer” differently than many on SI and especially those within broader cultural fundamentalism use it. For example, we have abstainers in our church, but they would be puzzled by many of the arguments on SI and within cultural fundamentalism.

While in SC, we attended a IX Marks-styled church, but a church that had BJU faculty and staff members as members. Within the body, there was a wide divergence on many of these types of issues. My wife and I enjoy having people over for dinner and fellowship. Whenever we would invite a new member or someone we didn’t know very well, I would ask the senior pastor about our guests position on alcohol. Do we need to put all of our alcohol out of sight so as not to needlessly offend? Do we just not offer them any? Or, are they imbibers?

When we moved up here to the DC area and began attending a IX Marks church planted out of CHBC, things changed. The first time I asked the senior pastor those questions, he was confused and couldn’t figure out what I was talking about. His response was basically, “You’re all adults. Can’t you have this conversation with them? If they don’t drink alcohol, they’ll tell you.”

My point, my “arguments” with abstainers in my immediate context are vastly different than the “arguments” about alcohol here on SI. Joe is just down the road from us, and his immediate context is very similar to mine.

To be clear, I’m not saying that one context is better than the other. I’m just pointing out that different audiences change how terms are viewed.

My view = drinking in moderation seems legitimate, I choose not to, and I think the more holy and prudent thing to do is to abstain or be very careful.

If I was asked John’s question = I don’t care if you have alcohol out or not. I live in the real world! I’ll take coffee, if you have it!

I’m married to an abstainer. I may have an occasional beer if offered. (I’m cheap.) Every one of my cardiologists (8 so far) have told me that an occasional glass of wine is beneficial (and better than grape Juice) but I don’t like wine.

We all agree that drunkenness is a sin and it seems the majority of us aren’t going to be willing to be martyrs for a direct Biblical command for abstinence or to drink alcohol.

With those parameters, I’m fine with letting individuals decide for themselves.

Whoever disliked my last comment, I wonder why!? What did I say that is “bad?”

….per Martin’s comment, is simply the example of Christ as detailed in places like the second chapter of John, Matthew 11:19, and Luke 7:34. If indeed the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and the Pharisees accused Him of being a glutton and a drunkard, and if indeed the Christ created wine at Cana, then I am at a loss to see how it could be generally more “holy” to do something else besides what He clearly did.

Don’t get me wrong; there are great reasons not to drink, like problems with alcohol (personal, family, or ministry), or simply because they don’t like the taste or price, or finally if someone simply doesn’t want to bother. That noted, my view is that a schism is being created by those who would bind the consciences of fellow believers by either ignoring the good things Scripture says about wine, or by performing linguistic torture on the definition of the words meaning “wine”—the “two wines” hypothesis being an example.

Either one of these approaches is going to bear nasty fruit, because the central thing being done is to train people to ignore or twist Scripture when it’s inconvenient to their personal hobby horse. As I’ve noted before, that is far more harmful than having Christians occasionally stray into drunkenness, because it jettisons the very tool that is needed to repent.

I am flattered, like Tyler, at the individual(s) who chose to dislike anything even vaguely resembling support for the use of alcohol as a beverage, but it strikes me that it would be appropriate for that individual to step up to the plate and say what he dislikes. To my comments, if you’ve got an argument for Scripture proscribing wine that doesn’t either ignore positive uses or re-define the word at one’s own convenience, I’d be willing to consider it.

I was recently rejected by a pulpit committee because of my views on alcohol. I abstain (and I’ve never had a drink). I was asked what I think - My position - I can’t prove it wrong from Scripture, thus it is permissible. In our culture, drinking is probably (stress probably) unwise. When asked whether alcohol should be in a doctrinal statement or church covenant, I said, “No. It is an issue of discipleship. I wouldn’t want to withhold membership from a new believer who still drinks. It is an issue of sanctification and discipleship.”
“Dear pastor Watson,
Thank you for your interest, but we regret to inform you that…”

The Bible describes alcoholic wine in detail and says not to even look at it (Proverbs 23).

Whether you believe Jesus made alcoholic or nonalcoholic wine (John 2) is a matter of interpretation, not you just taking the Bible for what it says. Scripture does not have a word for alcohol. So ancients would describe alcohol by its effects.

More than once the Bible says to be sober (1 Peter 5:8 NKJV; etc.). Many would say you lose your sobriety with the first drink of alcohol. If that is not true, then exactly when do you lose your sobriety?

Many believe you should not use dangerous drugs for recreational purposes, only for strictly medicinal purposes.

Abstaining is wise and prudent.

Advising people not to drink will not work for everyone. But many will take the message of abstinence seriously. Abstinence works every time it is tried.

David R. Brumbelow