"I drink as much as I want, which is none."

I think it is a very good one.

An observation on the health benefits of alcohol (it seems like the articles on alcohol are like the ones on coffee). Seen on 60 Minutes last night

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/living-to-90-and-beyond/

The so-called 90’s study:

Lesley Stahl: What about alcohol?

Claudia Kawas: Oh. Alcohol made a difference.

But it may not be what you think…

Claudia Kawas: Moderate alcohol was associated with living longer than individuals who did not consume alcohol.

Lesley Stahl: Wait a minute. Ha— moderate— alcohol you live longer?

Claudia Kawas: Yes.

The 90’s study… post hoc ergo propter hoc

Then again, very few things that are unwise on balance are completely without an upside. The presence of a benefit or two doesn’t prove much.

The author understands the Bible and alcohol situation very well. It’s not often I see such a well-balanced Biblical perspective.

Oddly, I can’t see much of an actual quantification of the risks vs. rewards….speaking as an engineer, two thumbs down to the American Cancer Society for stating nebulous dangers and benefits without even trying to establish a likely range of effects. With due respect to wide variances in medical research, at least you’ve got to try—and if the statistics are too messy, then you simply admit that you don’t know.

To draw a picture, if the relative risks for oral cancer are anything like those for lung cancer, an increase in 40X, you have tobacco at 40x, and alcohol at 1.36x. Statistically, it’s pretty much in the noise.

This is especially the case when the article’s author notes the amount of soft drinks and ice creams you can find in the typical grocery store….OK, has this guy never, ever heard of diabetes or heart disease? And when one looks at poor neighborhoods, the biggest health risk faced there is….not alcoholism….but the consequences of obesity. And thus it seems to me that the best way to deal with the problems resulting from either alcohol or the american diet is not total abstinence, but rather moderation.

because you don’t have an abstinence option with eating. With alcohol you do have an abstinence option. People in poorer areas have to eat, and sometimes their only option is the affordable processed foods that are not necessarily good for them. Also, a lot of their obesity is because they are sedentary. I don’t think that the American diet vs. consumption of alcohol is a good moderation comparison.

Barry, interesting point, but I’ve “googled” the locations of supermarkets in places like Detroit and Compton, and what I’ve found is that even in the “hoodest of the hoods”, a good quality supermarket is generally only a couple of miles from any location in the city, and even most fast food joints have a healthy menu. Plus, even with “bad choices”, anyone still has the opportunity to do the most effective exercise known to man; a quick push-away from the dinner table, no?

I personally think that this example indicates not that it is more difficult to model good eating habits than sane drinking habits, but rather much easier—and I’d guess as well that as taste buds mature to enjoy a good salad instead of the double cheeseburger, the desire to guzzle Milwaukee’s Beast or Boone’s Farm will also decrease.

Though parallels may be interesting, other substances that are harmful in varying degrees—even more harmful—than alcohol don’t really prove anything about alcohol consumption. Since there is no either-or relationship, it’s possible for dozens of other things to be “even worse,” and alcohol to still be a bad idea.

Bert,

I appreciate your points. But I think the discussion is a little side-tracked. I was hoping to open a more wide-ranging discussion on my other reasons. How about a conversation about why we and our churches have so little diversity of the kind Paul envisioned? Why are we satisfied with our current practice of Christian liberty when we have such a narrow context for understanding it Biblically? Are our youth and young adults being well discipled on this and similar topics? Are we preparing them to exercise liberty with due regard for their brothers and sisters, their neighbors, and their own experience of the Jesus life?

My point about healthy and enjoyable alternatives to alcohol was mostly to say that there is little reason to feel that we are missing out if we abstain from alcohol. Probably what I said still holds even if we eliminate the carbonated beverages. But that is only one of several more important points. Let’s give attention to the bigger issues.

Thank you for joining the conversation.

Grace,

Stephen Enjaian

I’m a staunch advocate of abstinence, and part of the reason is because of the insulation so many have in Christian communities. It is part of why some who are second- or third-generation believers become labeled as “naive”. In the culture which I was raised in, Christians drinking would be considered stupidly naive. The author makes the distinction between “engaging” culture as opposed to “swimming in” culture. Much of the pushback that I see is the alcohol=good times (false) association that advertisers have shoved down our throats our entire lifetime.

[SEnjaian]

How about a conversation about why we and our churches have so little diversity of the kind Paul envisioned? Why are we satisfied with our current practice of Christian liberty when we have such a narrow context for understanding it Biblically? Are our youth and young adults being well discipled on this and similar topics? Are we preparing them to exercise liberty with due regard for their brothers and sisters, their neighbors, and their own experience of the Jesus life?

I think the reason you haven’t seen much of this type of diversity is because in most fundamental churches I’ve been a part of, there is no such thing as Christian liberty — every possible aspect of life is considered to have a universal application, and for every one of those situations, the church had a position on it. (That’s anecdotal evidence of course, but in conversation with others, it seems to me that it’s true more generally.) Of course, I think that just meant that Christian liberty was then exercised secretly in the home, and definitely not talked about. With that kind of environment, what need is there to talk about how our liberty is affecting others? From the practical standpoint of the church, liberty didn’t really exist. Of course, there would be no attempt to explain away Romans 14, but beyond meat (and what right-thinking American doesn’t eat that?) and celebration of days, there was never any attempt to see how Christian liberty would apply to issues not directly named in the text.

On alcohol, given that it is a relatively complex topic in scripture (and socially/culturally), I won’t try to argue that it is a liberty or isn’t. But fundamentalism hasn’t been known for really ever thinking that that topic falls under liberty, so from that point of view there hasn’t needed to be a discussion about how exercising of that “liberty” will affect others. Obviously, that is changing now. But even beyond alcohol, I would like for churches to have conversations on liberty and the consequences of exercising it. However, unless fundamental churches openly allow some amount of diversity in application, people will continue to have a narrow context even as many of them hide the fact that they are exercising their liberty anyway.

So in answer to your question “Are we preparing them to exercise liberty with due regard for their brothers and sisters, their neighbors, and their own experience of the Jesus life?”, I would say that in general, for the fundamentalism of the past, the answer is an emphatic NO. I, for one, would like to see that change.

Regarding the claim that the comparison is not apt, the original article pretty much demands the comparison by claiming in point #4 that soft drinks and ice cream are safe. Which, at least inasmuch as soda accounts for about 200 calories per day in the typical American diet (20 pounds of fat annually), is at the very least debatable.

Regarding how we show love for the alcoholic, let’s remember that Romans 14 is really dealing with situations where meat and wine were sacrificed to idols before being sold in the market place, and Colossians 2 and 1 Tim. 4 strongly condemn the practice of judging others for eating and drinking things God has created to be enjoyed. Moreover, the problem drinker or alcoholic cannot isolate himself for incentives to partake—he drives by dozens of stores that sell liquor on his way to work, and sees advertisements for the same in any printed, broadcast, or online media. So the Christian enjoying his liberty to enjoy what Christ Himself made at Cana is not likely to be the “breaking point” that throws the problem drinker off the wagon, to put it mildly.

What that problem drinker needs, in light of his constant temptations, is a demonstration of self-control. Start with salad at the church potluck, and don’t go back for fifths. Share a small coke with your wife instead of a large one for yourself. Drive an older car. Live in a smaller house. Work hard, but don’t grab for the brass ring at the expense of your family. If you drink, show by example how to enjoy alcohol responsibly.

And in doing so, you’re more likely to end up like those moderate drinkers who outlived teetotalers in the 90s study. It could be something in the drink itself, or moderate drinking could be…..

…..a proxy for the spiritual fruit of self-control.