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
Don, given that the only “days” that make sense in the first half of Romans 14 are the Jewish holy days, and given that the food is spoken of as “unclean”, I’d be very surprised to find that Jewish religion wasn’t the central issue here. You’re going to have to work to convince me that there is an alternate explanation.
But that said, if we agree that it is matters of faith and disputable matters, we arrive at almost exactly the same point. That is, Romans 14 tolerance has an entry point—that the matter is significant in faith and disputable Biblically—and an exit point where the matter is no longer reasonably disputable. Dan describes the exit point well, that of where the matter is indisputably sin, but there is also an entry point, and we do ourselves a huge injustice if we don’t heed it.
Let’s use your example of grunge clothing as a way of testing this. If someone comes in wearing loose, dirty, unkempt clothes, is that a matter that threatens our faith? Well, let’s take a look at James 2—um, “grunge” is exactly what James is talking about, so it’s pretty indisputable what our attitude ought to be—love for the brother in poor clothes. Not a Romans 14 issue.
Plus, if we proscribe every kind of clothing associated with grievous sin, we’d better get a Biblical defense of nudism ready and move south of the Mason-Dixon Line, don’t you think? Guilt by association is seriously bad logic and should be expelled from the church.
(things I’d include in Romans 14; what ought the length of our hair be per 1 Corinthians 11? What kind of movies ought we watch per the “uncover nakedness” in Lev. 18, that kind of thing)
Bringing it back to wine, let’s ask ourselves whether the realities of wine are disputable. Is it disputable that the Bible has a lot of passages describing wine as a blessing and commending the moderate use of it? Is it disputable that the Bible has many passages describing drunkenness as sin? Now we can hem and haw about it, but reality is that for the honest reader, the answers are “no” and “no”. Not disputable, you can’t point to it as a matter of faith since the Bible doesn’t say anything bad about moderate drinking, hence not Romans 14.
Really, Christian arguments against moderate drinking fall into two main categories:
- practical issues (cost, likelihood of becoming dependent, etc..)
- twisting of text—“if it takes six drinks to get drunk, the person who has a drink is one sixth drunk”
Neither is a Romans 14 issue. Now we ought to agree that a person can abstain from anything if he so desires and it does not cause him to sin, but that, again, is not a Romans 14 issue, and the person who abstains from meat/bread/wine/whatever then has no right to ask others to abstain from their disdained substance.
(which is what I was getting at above when I mentioned that many mis-use Romans 14 to more or less hold others hostage to their preferred lifestyle)
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Don Johnson] … 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.
Right. Very interesting. Just to round out your knowledge on this point - in case you haven’t checked yet, if you look as various available Greek texts of 1Cor10:28 (bottom of this page), W&H, Nestle GNT, and Tishendorf say ἱερόθυτόν. TR and Byzantine say εἰδωλόθυτόν.
[Bert Perry]… That is, Romans 14 tolerance has an entry point—that the matter is significant in faith and disputable Biblically—and an exit point where the matter is no longer reasonably disputable. ...Bert, I know I’ve only quoted one little part of your post. But this is the core of that post and I think it will fail - so long as the common understanding of Romans 14 prevails.
If “not reasonably disputable” is the bound of Romans 14, then you and David Brumbelow are not going to agree on whether the matter is reasonably disputable. For him, it’s not reasonable to dispute the Biblical grounds, so he’s going to say, “Ok - beyond the bounds of Romans 14.”
[Dan Miller]Bert Perry wrote:
… That is, Romans 14 tolerance has an entry point—that the matter is significant in faith and disputable Biblically—and an exit point where the matter is no longer reasonably disputable. …Bert, I know I’ve only quoted one little part of your post. But this is the core of that post and I think it will fail - so long as the common understanding of Romans 14 prevails.
If “not reasonably disputable” is the bound of Romans 14, then you and David Brumbelow are not going to agree on whether the matter is reasonably disputable. For him, it’s not reasonable to dispute the Biblical grounds, so he’s going to say, “Ok - beyond the bounds of Romans 14.”
Actually, that is exactly where I want to bring the discussion—well said. Romans 14 tolerance ought to be limited to things that are disputable and Biblically based. There are other provisions in Scripture for cases where two sides both agree that they, and the other, see the matter as indisputable—it is cause for hearty, but cordial, debate between the sides, and at a certain point might also be a cause for separation. I for one would not attend a church where it was preached that Jesus made unfermented grape juice at Cana, and I would guess that David would edge away from a church that preached that Christ most likely made ordinary wine with alcohol.
That is as it should be—what is at risk with the “common” view of Romans 14 is that all too often, it is used to (ironically) set a mood where Christians are almost compelled to hold to a specific cultural view that is not significantly supported in Scripture—I view this as an abuse of Christian liberty. So more and more, I would suggest that instead of simply acquiescing in the abridgement of freedom in Christ, believers ought to ask the supposed “weaker brother” what real, Biblical reasons they have for their position. It would be a lot more productive than what we have today.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Actually, that is exactly where I want to bring the discussion—well said. Romans 14 tolerance ought to be limited to things that are disputable and Biblically based. There are other provisions in Scripture for cases where two sides both agree that they, and the other, see the matter as indisputable—it is cause for hearty, but cordial, debate between the sides, and at a certain point might also be a cause for separation. I for one would not attend a church where it was preached that Jesus made unfermented grape juice at Cana, and I would guess that David would edge away from a church that preached that Christ most likely made ordinary wine with alcohol.
That is as it should be—what is at risk with the “common” view of Romans 14 is that all too often, it is used to (ironically) set a mood where Christians are almost compelled to hold to a specific cultural view that is not significantly supported in Scripture—I view this as an abuse of Christian liberty. So more and more, I would suggest that instead of simply acquiescing in the abridgement of freedom in Christ, believers ought to ask the supposed “weaker brother” what real, Biblical reasons they have for their position. It would be a lot more productive than what we have today.
Quite frankly, this is a complete misunderstanding of Romans 14. Apart from the differences between Rm14 and 1 Cor, the whole thrust of Romans 14 is not to give the strong-conscience believer to do as he pleases. In fact there are two instructions. The first is mutual toleration of each others views, the second is voluntary limitation by the strong (hold their views in private) with a view to being a blessing to the weak. They are not to try to convince the weak conscience believer of the rightness or wrongness of his views. They are simply to set the differences aside and the strong are to do everything in their power not to put a stumbling block or an enticement before the weak conscience believer while also seeking their edification.
The chapter is not about Christian liberty at all. It’s about Christian love and ministry to one another.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
As I said before, Don, you and I seem surprisingly similar so far.
Except your last sentence. If you’re using hyperbole to say that love and fellowship are Paul’s focus by far over establishing liberty, then yes, I agree. But Paul does take time in both passages to establish the liberty of the fully convinced one who gives thanks to God. There’s a set of messages for each brother.
Those of you who live outside the US and are not from the US…
What is the stance of conservatives in your country about alcohol? Do indigenous believers there espouse the grape juice theory?
And Spurgeon fans — there was an attempted movement toward prohibition in the UK, but it was unsuccessful. Did Spurgeon comment on this? Where did he stand?
"The Midrash Detective"
[Dan Miller]As I said before, Don, you and I seem surprisingly similar so far.
Except your last sentence. If you’re using hyperbole to say that love and fellowship are Paul’s focus by far over establishing liberty, then yes, I agree. But Paul does take time in both passages to establish the liberty of the fully convinced one who gives thanks to God. There’s a set of messages for each brother.
What I mean by saying the passage isn’t about liberty is that the point of the passage is not to affirm the unrestrained exercise of the liberty of the strong. Paul agrees that no meat is unclean of itself, the Christian has perfect liberty to eat any kind of meat (not that anyone should ever want to eat, say, liver, etc!!!). But the strong is not to despise the weak who thinks pork, for example, or meat in general, for another example. And the strong is to focus his attention on building up the faith of the weak, not doing anything to tempt the weak to act against his conscience. This includes to a measure keeping one’s opinions about your liberty to eat pork (for example) to yourself. (Rm 14.22). That doesn’t mean, I think, necessarily keeping it a secret, so that the weak would never know, but rather restraining your practices so that you never place the weak into a difficult situation.
Usually the way Rm 14 is taught is to focus on the first 12 verses and say, “See, you are not to judge me for my strong conscience, I won’t despise you for your weak one, and I’ll do what I want” That spirit is entirely contrary to the whole passage. It is usually the way the pro-alcohol crowd approaches the passage. If we concede that alcohol is adiaphora, that is, covered by this passage, then this attitude is entirely contradictory to the passage. (I don’t concede that, BTW, I think alcohol is in some measure covered [by application] by 1 Cor 8-10, but also by many other passages. I don’t see it as a matter of indifference. No one, I think, is saying “I am drinking alcohol to the Lord” (Rm 14.6) If they are, they have a bigger problem than they think they do.)
I hope that helps. Perhaps if I am still unclear you could point specifically to something I am saying here so I can think about it.
I am off for the rest of the day and won’t be able to respond… and tomorrow, of course, doesn’t look much better!
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Ed Vasicek]Those of you who live outside the US and are not from the US…
What is the stance of conservatives in your country about alcohol? Do indigenous believers there espouse the grape juice theory?
And Spurgeon fans — there was an attempted movement toward prohibition in the UK, but it was unsuccessful. Did Spurgeon comment on this? Where did he stand?
Ed,
I’ve not entered this discussion mostly because it rehashes the same arguments and rarely any new contributions. But since you asked - we lived overseas for several years in France and Romania.
In Romania, Christians were mostly abstinent when it came to alcoholic beverages except they did serve wine (often homemade) at the Lord’s Supper. With the arrival of American missionaries after the ‘89 revolution some churches planted jointly by Americans and Romanians used grape juice when it became available. However in the villages it was not uncommon to find believers who used tuica (spirits from plums) although I can’t say how widespread it was. We lived in Romania for 5 years and I took the wine with Lord’s Supper. We would warn visiting American pastors of the custom and many of them chose to abstain from observing the Lord’s Supper.
In France where we lived for about 9 years over two different periods wine was used widely by Christians especially at meals. Wine, cheese, and bread are staples. There were some French Christians who did not drink wine for different reasons but I don’t recall any who did it out of a biblical conviction or thought that when wine was mentioned positively in the Bible it was grape juice unless they had been influenced by American missionaries. I’m sure there are some exceptions. The last time we were in France 2006-2008 we helped plant a church in the Paris suburbs where there was wine at church dinners and no one ever raised an eyebrow (maybe because we were the only Americans in the church) and I never saw anyone leave tipsy (including myself). I remember fondly the time my wife and I were invited to dinner at the home of a student couple from one of the most conservative Bible institutes in France and had several varieties of wine for the meal and with dessert. Often meals in homes with guests lasted for several hours with several courses and different wines. It is a thing of beauty.
In the interest of transparency I am now bi-vocational in Philadelphia working as a certified drug and alcohol addictions therapist. Without getting into a long discussion about the causes of addiction (biological, psychological, social) I think there are some people who should not drink or ever drink again. I wish I could know who they were before they fall into addiction. Yet I still maintain that the Scripture teaches that wine is one of God’s gifts and I am grateful God allowed me to live outside the US for years. Like many of His gifts there is abuse; however the abuse by some does not require abstinence by all. To those who abstain, they do well. To those who appreciate God’s gift and enjoy it in gratitude, they do well also. I condemn neither.
Steve Davis
of the former Soviet Union are abstainers (though not prohibitionists). Though, they do serve wine at the Lord’s Supper.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Steve Davis’ post included the following:
We lived in Romania for 5 years and I took the wine with Lord’s Supper. We would warn visiting American pastors of the custom and many of them chose to abstain from observing the Lord’s Supper.
I find it interesting that some would not obey the Lord’s clear command to participate in the Lord’s Supper over this.
It also seems that the practice of abstinence is relatively new in church history and is mainly in North America.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Ed,
Charles Spurgeon, in the last years of his ministry, came out very much against beverage alcohol and was for total abstinence.
Charles H. Spurgeon on Alcohol
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2010/04/charles-h-spurgeon-on-alcoh…
David R. Brumbelow
[Don Johnson]…This includes to a measure keeping one’s opinions about your liberty to eat pork (for example) to yourself. (Rm 14.22). That doesn’t mean, I think, necessarily keeping it a secret, so that the weak would never know, but rather restraining your practices so that you never place the weak into a difficult situation.
Your concern about the “strong” demanding their rights instead of living according to love is so important. I agree with you. I also see the application of liberty vs. love to be often a tough line to follow.
That concern ought to be the main message we read when open Romans 14 & 1 Cor 7-10. Second ought to be the need we all have to seek God’s will through His Word by his Spirit in our convictions.
But unfortunately we must always contend with questions of who the weak guy is.
[Don Johnson] (I don’t concede that, BTW, I think alcohol is in some measure covered [by application] by 1 Cor 8-10, but also by many other passages. I don’t see it as a matter of indifference…Ok. Here and in another post you made, we get uncomfortable with “indifferent” and “adiaphora.” And I think we should. In Philippians 1:10 and in Rom 2:18, we find the notion of approving what is excellent - “δοκιμάζεις τὰ διαφέροντα” - “testing what is excellent.”…
I think the lesson is that Paul is interested in diaphora. He never mentions adiaphora. When a Roman sees market meat as unclean, he should think of it as diaphora. In a grand sense, it might be adiaphora, so the term might be useful - and it is the historical term for such things. But it puts the emphasis in the wrong place. Paul is interested in two things:
1. Using the principles of God’s Word to approve what is excellent as individuals.
2. Learning to treat one another with love and respect and to refrain from judging one another when we come to different conclusions about what we approve as excellent.
[Ron Bean]Steve Davis’ post included the following:
We lived in Romania for 5 years and I took the wine with Lord’s Supper. We would warn visiting American pastors of the custom and many of them chose to abstain from observing the Lord’s Supper.
I find it interesting that some would not obey the Lord’s clear command to participate in the Lord’s Supper over this.
It also seems that the practice of abstinence is relatively new in church history and is mainly in North America.
Ron. I should’ve used “informed” rather than “warned.” I simply wanted visiting pastors to know that if they observed the Lord’s Supper with us that they would be drinking a thimble full of wine. Some abstained because they and their churches were teetotalers or prohibitionists. Some pretended they took it in order not to stand out since visiting pastors often sat up front in a place of honor. At times it was comical. In conversations with pastors and missionaries over the years I found some who abstain because they are expected to or signed a statement to that effect. It doesn’t mean that many don’t have real convictions. But sometimes it’s hard to rethink convictions/preferences if it will cost you.
Steve Davis
[Dan Miller]Don Johnson wrote:
(I don’t concede that, BTW, I think alcohol is in some measure covered [by application] by 1 Cor 8-10, but also by many other passages. I don’t see it as a matter of indifference……
Ok. Here and in another post you made, we get uncomfortable with “indifferent” and “adiaphora.” And I think we should. In Philippians 1:10 and in Rom 2:18, we find the notion of approving what is excellent - “δοκιμάζεις τὰ διαφέροντα” - “testing what is excellent.”I think the lesson is that Paul is interested in diaphora. He never mentions adiaphora. When a Roman sees market meat as unclean, he should think of it as diaphora. In a grand sense, it might be adiaphora, so the term might be useful - and it is the historical term for such things. But it puts the emphasis in the wrong place. Paul is interested in two things:
1. Using the principles of God’s Word to approve what is excellent as individuals.
2. Learning to treat one another with love and respect and to refrain from judging one another when we come to different conclusions about what we approve as excellent.
That’s interesting and helpful. Now to get to the topic of the thread, do you then see the passage being applicable to alcohol? That is, that a scruple about alcohol should be something where we can come to different conclusions and leave it at that? I ask because I would have trouble seeing how that would work, but I’ll leave the question there and perhaps say more later.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Discussion