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
[Lee]…The point is that idol-tainting is no where hinted at as the reason for Rom. 14. Rome is in the relatively early stages of being repopulated with Jews, many of whom were exiled some half dozen years earlier. That some believers of the James/Jerusalem stripe (“…they are all zealous of the law…”) and others of the Peter stripe (“What God has cleansed that call not thou common…”) show up in the church in Rome is far more in keeping with the context, and is evidently what is being addressed.Most certainly Rom. 14 is not a renouncing of the clear prohibitions of partaking of pollutions of idols found in Acts 15, I Cor. 6-10, and other places.
I’m not so sure about “most certainly.” Let me list some things we can probably agree on:
(“Idol-tainted” here means - previously involved in idol worship and then sold in the market (away from the idol) as “meat.”)
1. IF market meat in Rome was idol-tainted, THEN that would have been a problem for Jews desiring to obey God.
2. IF market meat in Rome was NOT idol-tainted, THEN it still would likely have been problematic for Jews.
3. IF market meat in Rome was mixed and uncertain, THEN [same as #1].
4. IF Romans 14 allows idol-tainted eating, THEN Acts 15, 1 Cor 8-10a and Rev 2 probably refer to a different type of “idol-meat” than market-meat than Romans 14.
Lee and Don, have you read Ben Witherington’s work Not So Idle Thoughts About Eidolothuton (Tyndale Bulletin 44.2 (1993) 237- 254)?
I see your point about the chart. My observation is that very few self-identified (using the label) Fundamentalists drink even in moderation. I personally do not know one (I’m sure there must be one!). I have close relatives who are members of a fundamentalist-in-name church who do drink in moderation but they themselves would not self-identify with the label.
It seems to me that the fundamentalist taboo on drinking runs so deep in fundamentalist culture that it is part of fundamentalism itself. It has become a fundamental of the faith.
Self-disclosure …. I view the label “fundamentalist” of virtually void of meaning because of morphing over time. I gave up the label two years ago. My doctrinal position has remained constant over 40 years (available here). By and large I never bought into the so-called fundy-taboos; I think largely in part because I was not raised in fundamentalism and did not go to fundy-U. For example: about once a year I may attend a movie theater (but it’s been 16 months). I listen to a variety of music from classical to jazz to rock. I occasionally play cards (principally hearts with family).
Also a good point about conservative evangelicals who are total abstainers. The SBC leadership is pretty clear about the wisdom of abstinence but I don’t have a link handy.
Back in seminary (35 years ago), our Christian Reformed neighbors drank in moderation but thought it was terrible that we swam in our pool on the Sabbath. I never forced them to swim in my pool on the Sabbath and they never forced me to drink. So all was well!
The uniqueness of view A:
- This group sees that they need to prohibit others from drinking AND
- Just one drink subjects one to control
- They see no positive use of wine / the only good wine is alcohol free
I reject the A view. I was in the A position for a short time in my vocational-ministry career. I find it very flawed.
Don, Your quotes are in bold.
DON: Verse 25-26 proposes one scenario: buy anything you want in the market, just don’t ask questions about it.
I agree.
DON: Verse 27-30 proposes a second scenario: eat any meal in an unbeliever’s home unless he mentions the meat is offered to idols.
I agree. 2 scenarios.
DON: In both cases, the implication is that if you know it is idol-meat, abstain.
Here is where we differ on a slight point, but an important one.
Scenario 1: Your home
You don’t know if it’s idol-tainted. Actually , you know that some of it is - but you don’t care. Why? Because you don’t respect idols. It’s just meat.
Scenario 2: In the home of an unbelieving host
You don’t know if it’s idol-tainted; you eat [same as Scenario 1, ethically].
But IF he tells you it’s idol-tainted, then don’t eat. (Here’s where there’s two options.) WHY does his telling you it’s idol-tainted restrict you?
Option 1: YOUR knowledge, now increased, should limit YOUR conscience.
Option 2: Your HOST’S belief, now revealed, should limit HIS conscience.
Paul clears it up by saying, (v.29) “I do not mean your conscience, but his.” It’s option #2.
[Don Johnson] …I agree with you on most of what you say, you are correct in seeing 1cor 8.1-10.24 to be about eating meat in the idol temple.I do think Don and I have a lot of common ground on these passages. Don sent me a set of lessons on 1 Corinthians 8-10 a few years ago.…
I think it is possible that the issue in Rome is Jewish scruples, the words “clean” and “unclean” tend to point in that direction. However, I don’t think the text absolutely declares it and think that interpretations that insist on it tend to distort the impact of the passage. For us and our situations, it isn’t Jewish scruples we have to deal with amongst our brethren (or ourselves), but various scruples that have come about by various traditions and experiences. The passage is vague as to source and specific circumstances which makes it excellent for applying to any era of the church.
Anyway, I think we have pretty well worked out where we have points of difference in our interpretation. In the main, I agree with how you are taking the passages, I think.
We need to re-think what “Jewish scruples” means to us. We tend to think of Peter’s vision (“kill and eat”) and Mark 7 (“goes into…comes out of…defiles”). And we think, “Jewish scruple stuff is wrong - that’s all been changed.” But idolatry is STILL idolatry. The Old Testament might be “old,” but it’s full of principles that we should still be applying today. Rom 15:4 “For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.”And all these passages make more sense when you start thinking of the guy with scruples as possibly the smart, Bible-obedient one. More on that later…
OK, quick question for those who claim that Romans 14 might not have to do with Jewish habits; if that is true, what days are being referred to in verses 5 & 6? There are only three categories; Christian holy days (the Lord’s Day, Christmas and Easter were perhaps celebrated), Jewish holy days (Shabbat, Purim, Pesach, Shavuot, Yom Kippur, etc..), and pagan holy days.
Now let’s start with something obvious; it is absurd to believe that Paul would allow the church to celebrate pagan holy days, and it is equally absurd to believe that Jewish believers would proscribe the celebration of Christian holidays. Can we imagine a Jewish believer getting all worked up about a gentile Christian celebrating Passover, or the Lord’s Day?
So we are left with what I think is a pretty airtight case that the days at issue are Jewish holidays prescribed in Scripture, and this in turn forms the context for the latter part of the chapter regarding meat and wine. The objection is clearly that the meat and wine was not kosher; also supported in Scripture, and it could mean idolatry, the wrong animal, or the wrong methods of preparation.
Now do we need to decide which this is? No, for a very simple reason; as verse 1 tells us, we are dealing with matters of faith, and the context given to us in verses 5 and 6 is that we are talking about scruples for which a clear Biblical case can be made—really about how Christians ought to apply the Law. I would argue, if pressed, that idolatry was almost certainly central, but I don’t have to right now. It is sufficient to point out that what is at stake is how Jewish believers (and believers in general) ought to approach the Torah in the Church. And Paul tells us, more or less, to stay out of pagan temples, but don’t judge someone who buys meat or wine at the market—or refuses to do so.
To wit, verse 16. Do not let that which is good be spoken of as evil. To wit, verse 14—Paul says point blank regarding foods that there is nothing unclean of itself. OK, I’m going to be blunt here; it seems to me that the “A” wing of the church isn’t cluing in here. Note again that the objection raised to these foods and drinks is that they are “unclean”—we are talking Kosher regulations, not food safety here, and the issue at hand is how do we apply the Torah in the church.
In other words, Romans 14 is not talking about whatever “scruples” we can come up with. It is about real theological positions that can be defended from the Scriptures. To reduce it to Victorian prohibitionism, KJVO, or Adventist abstentionism does a real disservice to what Paul is trying to tell us here.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Dan Miller]Lee and Don, have you read Ben Witherington’s work Not So Idle Thoughts About Eidolothuton (Tyndale Bulletin 44.2 (1993) 237- 254)?
Haven’t read it, but found a pdf here. Just now read through the summary, it looks very interesting. It is interesting that Paul uses hierothuton in 1 Cor 10.28 instead of eidolothuton, as in the rest of the passage. I’ll have to read Witherington to see what he says, but if the distinction mentioned in the summary of the article holds, I’d say that usage reinforces the things we have been saying about the passage. Those who try to make “market meat” the issue throughout 1 Cor 8 are way off base if this is correct.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Dan Miller]Here is where we differ on a slight point, but an important one.
Scenario 1: Your home
You don’t know if it’s idol-tainted. Actually , you know that some of it is - but you don’t care. Why? Because you don’t respect idols. It’s just meat.
Ok, didn’t see this post before I sent my last one. Here is the thing, what happens if I know specifically that the meat is hierothuton? In other words, I’m at the meat market, I see a good deal on lamb chops (or whatever) and inadvertantly ask the merchant, “Where did this come from?” and he says, “Oh, the temple of Diana sent this batch over this morning.” What then?
Given the context, I think then I do care and I buy something else. Otherwise, though I know that probably a lot of the meat in the market is hierothuton, and I don’t ask questions, then you’re right, I don’t care. It’s just meat. Once I’ve asked the question, then what do I do if I get the wrong answer?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Dan Miller]…
(“Idol-tainted” here means - previously involved in idol worship and then sold in the market (away from the idol) as “meat.”)
1. IF market meat in Rome was idol-tainted, THEN that would have been a problem for Jews desiring to obey God.
[If market meat in Rome was idol-tainted, then it should be a problem for every obedient believer regardless as to whether of Jewish or Gentile heritage—to “abstain from pollutions of idols” is an absolute (I Cor. 10:20FF “I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils….ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table and of the table of devils….”) Romans was not written to an exclusively Jewish assembly.]
2. IF market meat in Rome was NOT idol-tainted, THEN it still would likely have been problematic for Jews. K
3. IF market meat in Rome was mixed and uncertain, THEN [same as #1]. K
4. IF Romans 14 allows idol-tainted eating, THEN Acts 15, 1 Cor 8-10a and Rev 2 probably refer to a different type of “idol-meat” than market-meat than Romans 14.
[Again, there is not the slightest indication that idol-tainted meat is what is being referenced, much less a different type of completely undefined idol-tainting than that referenced elsewhere.]
…
Edit and emphasis mine. According to almost every authority Romans is written at a later date than I Cor. although there is some disagreement on whether it was 1, 3, 5, or whatever years. Either Paul is contradicting himself and the Lord Jesus Christ (Rev. 2), or he is referencing something other than idolatry. The context drives the conclusion of “something other.” If it is contradictory, then we have an inspiration issue to work through.
Lee
Well, Lee, logically, you should be able to agree with 1 and 4. They both say IF…THEN. You can just say, “true” to the IF-THEN statement even knowing that you don’t think the IF statement is true.
I do not for a minute think that Paul in writing Romans is contradicting Jesus in Rev 2 or James, et.al. in Acts 15.
[Bert Perry]…To wit, verse 16. Do not let that which is good be spoken of as evil. To wit, verse 14—Paul says point blank regarding foods that there is nothing unclean of itself. OK, I’m going to be blunt here; it seems to me that the “A” wing of the church isn’t cluing in here. Note again that the objection raised to these foods and drinks is that they are “unclean”—we are talking Kosher regulations, not food safety here, and the issue at hand is how do we apply the Torah in the church….First, what were the exact issues within Romans 14 as experienced in Paul’s day?
1. Something to do with meat -vs- vegetarianism.
2. Something to do with treating all days the same -vs- honoring some days as special.
3. Something to do with wine or grape juice.
4. “Anything”
I think the argument that these are all Jewish scruples is compelling. I listed three reasons somewhere in these threads; there are more.
IF they were Jewish, THEN we can say a little more about them:
1a. Meat-eating -vs- vegetarianism in order to avoid unbiblical meat (whether idol-tainted, non-kosher, etc.)
2a. Sabbath observance (including holy days) -vs- not (note that many still see Sabbath observance as not done away with in the NT).
3a. Drinking -vs- Abstaining (either idol-tainted (wine) or perhaps Jewish Vow based-include all grape juice)
4a. “Anything”
Because “anything” is in there, and because the list changes in 1 Cor 6-10 (if that represents an application of the same ethical tools to other similar and dissimilar situations), we should see these lists as examples. But then, how should the list be continued? What sort of things belong in this list? What are the principles that should be used to decide if something is adiaphora?
(This is a really tough thing. For now, it’s important to note that the questions Bert, Lee, Don, and I have been discussing are so important. We must first establish what the issues were as well as we can. Then we can explore why Paul chose each of them.)
The question of what is and isn’t adiaphora is of foundational importance in applying these passages.
Let me give an example by going back to the topic of Alcohol. Consider 3a above, considered through the lens of Jewish practices. We can be pretty sure that Paul while or before writing Romans was himself under a Nazarite Vow, including grape juice abstinence. So grape juice is a very reasonable thought for oinos in Rom 14:21, if the word is used for fresh GJ. That means that we can’t say for SURE that oinos is “wine.”
This means that we include it as a Romans 14 issue on the basis of categorical inclusion (if you believe it fits in the category of adiaphora). What happens when two differ on whether the Bible forbids alcohol?
Will (wine-guy) says, “It’s adiaphora. I won’t despise; you don’t judge.”
Tom (Teetotaler) says, “No - it’s not adiaphora! The Bible says it’s wrong. I need to explain this to you because I have concern for you as a brother.”
The tools of Romans 14 (and similar) are not available to these brothers. Once he denies it’s adiaphora, Tom takes it out of the realm of passages like Romans 14.
The interesting thing is that because of this, Romans 14 never applies to anything.
If the matter has no Biblical basis, then everyone agrees it’s just human preference.
If the matter does have Biblical basis, then those who disagree with the reasoning of that basis say, “Adiaphora! Romans 14” and those who agree with the Biblical basis say, “No! Not adiaphora. Don’t try to bring up Romans 14!”
–
I do think Romans 14 applies to wine today. But not because wine is in the passage. Because the passage applies to a category of things that includes wine. There’s a lot of ground to cover to get there, though.
I am not convinced that Rm 14 is specifically Jewish scruples, especially in the light of the fact that Paul is so ready to name Jew vs. Gentile differences throughout the book. I think it is possible that Jewish scruples are involved, but I don’t see how we can be dogmatic about it. Also, I think if you assume it is so, then it colors what you think adiaphora are.
On the topic of adiaphora, I think that a thing can be adiaphora, indifferent, in its essence, but because of association it is so closely connected with evil that it becomes taboo for a Christian - i.e., 1 Cor 8-10, instead of Rm 14. Trying to think of an example… perhaps ‘grunge’ clothing? It generally covers the body, no immodesty issues, but its connection with an evil culture? (Just thinking out loud, don’t crucify me for this one!)
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
2006 SBC Resolution on Alcohol Use in America
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2011/04/2006-sbc-resolution-on-alcohol-use-in.html
David R. Brumbelow
Don, I think you and I are perhaps closer than last time we talked.
Sometime I’ll have to put my thoughts down and perhaps Aaron will put them on here. I’ll be interested in your thoughts.
[Dan Miller]Well, Lee, logically, you should be able to agree with 1 and 4. They both say IF…THEN. You can just say, “true” to the IF-THEN statement even knowing that you don’t think the IF statement is true.
I do not for a minute think that Paul in writing Romans is contradicting Jesus in Rev 2 or James, et.al. in Acts 15.
I fully believe that you do not believe Paul is contradicting himself, James, or the Lord Jesus Christ.
A significant difference between Rom 14 and I Cor. 8-10 is that Rom 14 deals exclusively with nouns (meat, days, etc.) while I Cor. references nouns (meat) and verbs (“sit at meat”)—objects and actions, if you please.
I agree with your take that Rom. 14 is primarily (I would say exclusively) dealing with a biblical change of status of those nouns: meat declared under inspiration to be “unclean” is now determined under inspiration to be clean (Acts 10); days which were declared to be “holy” are now determined to be common. I could even see where Rom. 14 references the traditional practices of orthodox Jews which have no basis in the Law (Purim; the holy days referenced in Zech. 7, for example) as also receiving a change of status as per Acts 10. Or even other changes of status within the body of believers that may be received with skepticism. In any case, the status of these nouns has changed from biblically unacceptable to biblically acceptable, but not biblically mandated (there is no biblical mandate that states you must eat pork, or meat at all for that matter [it is alright, but dumb IMHO, to be a vegetarian] ).
Frankly, in this day the issue isn’t likely to be clean and unclean meats, or which day the church assembles, etc. I do think a significant issue that has been and will continue to be faced is the tainting of any given culture’s idolatry on an object (“meat” if you please) that, because of a change in the idolatry of the culture, the passage of time, or other factors, is no longer a pollution of an idol but just an object. No modern culture has any significant worship of Aphrodite any more, so a scallop shell necklace, earrings of kissing swans, or whatever is no longer an identification with the worship of Aphrodite. Now, there was a day when a girl in the youth group of Corinth Baptist Church showing up and sporting those would have, and should have, been an issue in the church. The rejection of those idol-tainted objects was an absolute imperative as per I Cor. 8-10. Somewhere along the line the worship and culture of Corinth died out and that idolatrous status changed—it was no longer idol-tainted! There were likely some in the assembly whose granddaddy’s granddaddy had communicated down the family tree the evils of all associated with the worship of Aphrodite. Individuals, believers in the assembly, who may have retained “doubts” as to the veracity of that change of status could very likely have issues with the liberty of others to utilize whatever objects may have been involved. If you are looking for application of Rom. 14 to idol-tainted meat this or similar scenarios could be it.
However, there is no indication that approving idol-tainted meat/days/drink as a liberty issue is the goal.
Let’s face the facts, idolatry ruins my ability to partake of things (objects or actions) that I might otherwise legitimately enjoy if I am to be obedient to Scripture. Back to the subject that began this thread, is modern beverage alcohol one of those things ruined by the idolatry of this culture?
Lee
Discussion