Does your church allow its main board members (elders, deacons, overseers, whatever) to drink alcohol (in moderation)?

there is this nasty herbal medicinal alcohol in pharmacies here and it’s fine if people use that. Otherwise, our church has a no-alcohol policy for all members.

It has been a painful issue in the past in our church.

alcohol for leaders.

I completely sympathize with high standards for leaders, but I would not like to be the one responsible for keeping Jesus off the elder board.

Our county is #1 in the US for bars per capita (http://helenair.com/news/data-which-states-have-the-highest-number-of-b…), and alcohol and drug use is so prevalent, so I believe as a pastor it is important to follow our constitution and have all leaders be teetotalers.

You can’t do anything without alcohol…so says “the world”. Alcohol is needed to watch football, basketball, baseball, your kids soccer game, celebrate Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving. You can’t have a romantic dinner without alcohol. You can’t go out with the guys without alcohol…

Meanwhile, alcohol causes domestic violence, drinking and driving, liver disease, sexual immorality, rape, etc…

As Christians, let alone Christian leaders, shouldn’t we set the bar high?

Drink alcohol if you think it is that important to you, but I am reasonably confident that in a world with clean water, tea, Pepsi, Kool Aid, and grape juice, Jesus wouldn’t be tipping back a cold one while watching Monday Night Football!

Would you take Communion at a church that uses alcoholic wine?

[Mark_Smith]

Would you take Communion at a church that uses alcoholic wine?

Can’t speak for pastors here, but as a regular member I would do so and have done so when attending other churches. At one church in Europe, I even prepared my kids before the service and told them that it would be real wine, and that they need only touch their lips to it, but didn’t need to drink (since they would get a shock when it’s not just grape juice). If you object that much to taking wine with communion, I would find out beforehand if they use it, and stay away from their communion services.

[Mark_Smith] Meanwhile, alcohol causes domestic violence, drinking and driving, liver disease, sexual immorality, rape, etc…

Actually, the abuse of alcohol causes those things. Those things are also caused by other things besides [the abuse of] alcohol.

[Mark_Smith] Would you take Communion at a church that uses alcoholic wine?

Yes, actually did it with my teenage daughters some years ago [a Brethren church]. The look on their faces was priceless because they were expecting grape juice! The younger wasn’t sure she should swallow the wine.

all the time when we attend an immigrant Evangelical Christian-Baptist Church on a first Sunday of the month. The question that gets translated to me from Russian is “What part of wine don’t you understand, brother?”

[Mark_Smith]

Would you take Communion at a church that uses alcoholic wine?

don’t glorify america as the most alcoholic, etc.

america is a babe compared to post-soviet countries and alcohol.

…

I appreciate these little surveys. It challenges me to re-assess areas I thought were “safe” and beyond dispute. I just covered John 2 in our family devotions last night, so I was forced to consider the matter! Good stuff …

Any idea how teatotaller churches handled the juice part of communion prior to Welch’s?

Never “glorified America as the most alcoholic”. What I did say was that alcohol is a god in America…watch a sports event if you don’t believe me. Listen to people talk. Drive by a liquor store before a holiday…or any day for that matter. The “world” in America perceives alcohol as necessary for fun and celebration. Therefore, the godly and righteous should reject it. That is what I said.

There are several sources that I know of that describe alcohol before refrigeration. While I’ve never read it the Sharper Iron page features an ad for “Ancient Wine and the Bible”. Perhaps you can read that Jim.

You have to work to make wine first of all. If you let grape juice sit in open air it doesn’t become wine, it becomes vinegar! What I have read is that in the past people would cook grapes down to a paste. This paste would last a good while, was easily transportable, and could be added to water to reconstitute a flavored drink. Either way, the alcohol content of most “wine” in ancient times was less than we think of today unless one is talking about “strong drink”…which the Bible always condemns. Arguably, most alcohol in modern times would be called “strong drink” and needs to be avoided.

There were churches that used unfermented juice prior to Welch’s grape juice.

In 1858, the fifth edition of The Wesleyan Methodist Connection of America stipulated that at the Lord’s Supper:

Unfermented wine only should be used at the sacrament (p. 72).

That predates Welch’s by about 10 years.

However, even earlier than that there is a record of a Methodist church in Seneca Falls, NY that used unfermented juice. This bit of information was revealed by a man named Jonathan Metcalf who testified at the trial of Rhoda Bement around 1843. Bement was involved in the temperance movement and anti-slavery movement, among other things. She was put on trial by the Presbyterian session for a vocal altercation she had with the pastor regarding slavery. At her trial she was also accused of not partaking of wine at communion. She said she refused the wine because it contained alcohol and she refused to drink alcohol. It was then that Metcalf testified that there was no need to have wine for communion, because the Methodist church had been using boiled, unfermented, diluted grape juice for at least a year before the trial.

So, that predates Welch’s by about 20 years.

There’s a book by Altschuler and Saltzgaber that details Bement’s trial where you will find the information I summarized above.

[Mark_Smith]

Either way, the alcohol content of most “wine” in ancient times was less than we think of today unless one is talking about “strong drink”…which the Bible always condemns.

Not true. Deut. 14:26 KJV

If you think that is your proof text to drink alcohol…more power to you.

Bring a fifth of whiskey into church next Sunday and drink before the LORD!

[Mark_Smith] Bring a fifth of whiskey into church next Sunday and drink before the LORD!

Only if it is Elijah Craig!

[Mark_Smith]

If you think that is your proof text to drink alcohol…more power to you.

Bring a fifth of whiskey into church next Sunday and drink before the LORD!

That is not the point Mark. You said that “strong drink” is always condemned when mentioned in the Bible. I showed you a verse where it is mentioned in a positive way. I am not making a case for alcohol. I was merely pointing out that you were wrong in your assertion.

For what it is worth, I am a total abstainer.

We find many warnings throughout the pages of Scripture. Here are a few…

We find that wine or strong drink is a mocker, it is deceiving. (Proverbs 20:1)

We see a warning to separate from those who are given to drunkenness. (Prov. 23:19-21)

We see the deception of wine in Prov. 23:29-32.

Isaiah 5:11, 20-23 – Here God send out a great warning to those who have become addicted to strong drink and wine.

It blurs our vision and impairs our judgment. (Isa. 28:7)

It hinders an honest walk. (Rom. 13:13-14)

And Ephesians 5:18 reminds us to be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Sprit.

I will leave it for you to determine what God would have you do regarding wine and/ or strong drink!

I’m not convinced the verse you cited is approval to drink strong drink.

The reason I say that is vs 23 covers tithing to a local worship center. It doesn’t mention strong drink. But if it is too far to bring the goods themselves to one, then cash out and go to a more distant one, and party it up at the worship center…including strong drink. I don’t have an answer, but the verse is “odd” and seems like the straight forward reading isn’t the intended meaning.

[Mark_Smith]

I’m not convinced the verse you cited is approval to drink strong drink.

The reason I say that is vs 23 covers tithing to a local worship center. It doesn’t mention strong drink. But if it is too far to bring the goods themselves to one, then cash out and go to a more distant one, and party it up at the worship center…including strong drink. I don’t have an answer, but the verse is “odd” and seems like the straight forward reading isn’t the intended meaning.

Again, my point was not to use the verse to prove it is ok to drink strong drink. I mentioned it only to show you that you are wrong in your assertion that the Bible never mentions strong drink in a positive way.

[Mark_Smith]

Would you take Communion at a church that uses alcoholic wine?

Yes, and have, but they (Reformed Baptists) were gracious and provided regular grape juice alongside for us fundamentalists.

Again, as I explained, I reject that it is clear that this verse is positive about strong drink.

Our church allows any member to drink alcohol (including elders). We don’t limit what the Bible doesn’t limit. Most individuals are abstainers, including myself. So those of our church who do drink, do it with grace (i.e. don’t drink around those who are abstainers, including any church function). We do not encourage people to drink or take the freedom to drink, because of the many concerns outlined in Scripture. If you do abuse alcohol, you are considered in sin, just as anywhere else in Scripture. Overall this appears to work very well, while following Biblical principles. I would say in our church maybe 2%-3% drink at most, even with a more tolerant policy than most churches.

[Mark_Smith]

Again, as I explained, I reject that it is clear that this verse is positive about strong drink.

I find that strange. Why it is important to try to find a way to explain away what a plain reading of that passage tells you? You can still make your anti-alcohol case even while accepting what that verse obviously says.

As I previously stated, why does vs 23 NOT MENTION strong drink when taking the tithe to the local place, when it is in vs 26?

Mark, I am not sure. I am not convinced that matters at all. This is what I know. Verse 26 practically encourages Israelites to buy and drink “strong drink.” That is the only point I was making. I have no agenda; again, I am an abstainer myself.

[Mark_Smith]

As I previously stated, why does vs 23 NOT MENTION strong drink when taking the tithe to the local place, when it is in vs 26?

Because it is irrelevant. v23, is in reference to what you tithe, and v.26 is in reference to spending money on what you desire. v26 is a much broader categorization of items then v23. In reality it is irrelevant whether they match. Greg’s statement still stands, as does other verses that strong drink in and of itself is not a sin. It is how far you carry it, just as speaking with your tongue is not evil, even though there are numerous verses talking about the evils of the tongue.

OK

We do not allow church leaders to use alcohol as a beverage for recreational use. It would be offensive to many, a stumbling block to others, a high risk of personal addiction, and unnecessary in modern life.

[Mike Harding]

We do not allow church leaders to use alcohol as a beverage for recreational use. It would be offensive to many, a stumbling block to others, a high risk of personal addiction, and unnecessary in modern life.

Would a known violation that did not result in public, scandalous conduct be considered sufficient to disqualify a person from leadership, in your assessment, Mike? Say, a deacon takes a sip of champagne at a relative’s wedding out of state… when confronted, he does not deny, but does not believe he violated a Biblical command because he did not get drunk. Would you have a written policy that he would have signed and been in violation of?

[wryly]

I am beginning to be heartily amused at churches that mandate extrabiblical behavior and yet insist on the principles of “individual soul liberty” and the “autonomy of the local church”. Do you actually believe it or not?

/wryly

I am beginning to be heartily amused at churches that mandate extrabiblical behavior and yet insist on the principles of “individual soul liberty” and the “autonomy of the local church”. Do you actually believe it or not?

Doesn’t individual soul liberty and autonomy mean that a church is free to set whatever standards it believes are set forth in Scripture and that an individual has the liberty of conscience to choose to be a member or a leader in that church or not?

Doesn’t it also mean that a person who sees things one way does not have any right to impose that on a church and its members who may see it another way?

I don’t see the irony of it. To me, it seems a matter of knowing what individual soul liberty and autonomy mean, doesn’t it?

Jay, I presume you would not join a church that has any prohibition on drinking alcohol. That is your prereogative under soul liberty, but you do not have the liberty to impose that on a church that sees it differently than you do, right?

The point of soul liberty is that you can study the Bible and come to know God on your own, and you will be right or wrong based on that, and stand before God on that. It doesn’t mean that you are right, and others are wrong. It is essentially the denial of a teaching magesterium.

Doesn’t individual soul liberty and autonomy mean that a church is free to set whatever standards it believes are set forth in Scripture and that an individual has the liberty of conscience to choose to be a member or a leader in that church or not?

Yes. That being said, I still find it amusing when the Biblical principle of soul liberty is trumped by organizational fiat even while the organization claims to uphold “soul liberty”. As Greg asked - what would Mike do if one of his Deacons/Elders said that he drank some celebratory champagne at a party or something? Or if he was advised to drink a little red wine for his heart in his home? I say all of this because I have been in churches where some use of alcohol would immediately disqualify a person from a position of elder/deacon/pastor, and I am not convinced that blanket prohibitions on alcohol of any kind (does this include cooking wine?) are helpful.

Jay, I presume you would not join a church that has any prohibition on drinking alcohol. That is your prereogative under soul liberty, but you do not have the liberty to impose that on a church that sees it differently than you do, right?

Actually, I would prefer to join churches that promote abstinence from alcohol. The church I’m in now covers this in our church covenant -

We also purpose to…be filled with the Spirit and not mastered by anything else, including non-medicinal use of alcohol or other drugs, worldly philosophies, and bodily appetites; to abstain from all forms of activity which dishonor our Lord Jesus Christ, cause stumbling to a fellow believer or hinder the winning of a soul to Christ, our Savior; and to give Him preeminence in all things.

I bolded most of that because I think it all applies to this discussion of alcohol.

You also said:

The point of soul liberty is that you can study the Bible and come to know God on your own, and you will be right or wrong based on that, and stand before God on that. It doesn’t mean that you are right, and others are wrong. It is essentially the denial of a teaching magesterium.

Which is not at all what I said. I’m not a libertine, Larry, nor do I espouse the consumption of alcoholic beverages. The irony was just too obvious to avoid a comment on. As for the teaching magesterium - as someone who came from a Catholic background, I fully understand the clarity of the Scriptures when it comes to the priesthood of the believer and the warnings against establishing an eccelesiastical hierarchy.

My only point was that there does seem to be a disconnect between the principles of “decide for yourself as you study the Bible” and “to be a member in good standing in our church, you must hold our position”, especially when the discussion on alcohol has Scriptural arguments for both sides (and again, I think that the best and most defensible position is a total abstinence from it).

I still find it amusing when the Biblical principle of soul liberty is trumped by organizational fiat even while the organization claims to uphold “soul liberty”.

My point is that soul liberty isn’t being trumped by organizational fiat. The mere joining of the organization is the agreement to its policies. Soul liberty means you leave. So there is no conflict between the two.

Which is not at all what I said. I’m not a libertine, Larry, nor do I espouse the consumption of alcoholic beverages. The irony was just too obvious to avoid a comment on. As for the teaching magesterium - as someone who came from a Catholic background, I fully understand the clarity of the Scriptures when it comes to the priesthood of the believer and the warnings against establishing an eccelesiastical hierarchy.

That was not “you” as in Jay, but “you” as in general. I should have been more clear. My apologies. Some people have no idea what these descriptors and labels actually mean. I should have probably used “a person” or “one” instead of “you.”

My only point was that there does seem to be a disconnect between the principles of “decide for yourself as you study the Bible” and “to be a member in good standing in our church, you must hold our position”, especially when the discussion on alcohol has Scriptural arguments for both sides (and again, I think that the best and most defensible position is a total abstinence from it).

I am not sure that’s the case, at least with anyone here. I imagine most would say, “If you don’t agree with us, then you need to go somewhere else,” in the exercise of soul liberty.