Approving Alcohol, Prohibiting Marijuana: An Inconsistent Position

Wally, as one of those who would say that Christians can, within limitations, enjoy God’s good gift of wine, I find a problem with your logic, but end up more or less at the position that what the Bible bans is not a substance, but getting seriously impaired on that substance.

Let’s approach the logic first; in a nutshell, what you’re saying is that if we allow drug A, we must allow drug B. Now beyond the obvious “let me point you to the church coffeepot and the opioids your members use to overcome the pain of open heart surgery” rejoinder, that simply ignores the fact that the effects of drugs are very different. Some are physically addictive, some are not. Some are stimulants, some depressants, some hallucinogens, etc.. Some result in wildly antisocial behavior, others do not. If we don’t take these factors into account, we’re logically almost bound to treat the Starbucks junkie exactly the same as we treat the heroin addict.

And that’s silly, whether from a church discipline or a legal perspective.

So along those lines, I favor a significant degree of legalization of marijuana, though probably with some regulation to protect people like Maureen Dowd from accidental overdoses. It’s not addictive, doesn’t kill, has therapeutic uses, and the like. Worst I can say is that I’m allergic to it (I learned by scratch tests, not by smoking it), and that if you take something like 16x the legal dose (what Dowd did), you will have some interesting thoughts going through your head.

If you think that’s unique to dope, just get to Starbucks and ask for fifteen shots of espresso. If they’re responsible, by the way, they’ll stop you, because that can be a lethal dose of caffeine.

Way back on this thread I posted a description of addictive behavior. It describes the thoughts of a pastor friend of mine when he quit drinking coffee! It was precipitated by his son’s observation that he was caressing his coffee cup the same way an alcoholic cherishes his drink.

As to wine as a medicine, I seem to recall a prominent fundamentalist leaders who was arrested for DUI and offered as an excuse that his problem began when his doctor suggested he drink an occasional glass of wine.

I realize (at least I think) that people are having a bit of fun with the coffee thing, but I hope we don’t detract from the seriousness of this issue. Whatever might be the nature of coffee (and it can’t be habitforming; I know this because I have been drinking it for years, but I only have about 4 or 5 cups first thing in the morning so perhaps I am not a good representative), we can surely stipulate that there is no similarity between alcohol and coffee or marijuana and coffee. I like a good long drag from a freshly brewed pot (of coffee) as much as the next guy, but these are not the same kinds of things.

My point is that I doubt you can take this text make the following assumptions

Perhaps. I certainly wouldn’t use this text for that purpose. But it seems obvious that Paul assumed Timothy was a total abstentionist so that’s hardly a bad conclusion. I am not sure what else we would conclude from the text.

Ron, that’s fun….obviously my response would have been different had I known that. I confess with Tyler that I greatly enjoy my coffee, too, and have some tendency towards coffee snobbery myself. But hey—as long as it doesn’t rule our lives, does God say we cannot find joy in this? Does not Ecclesiastes 9:7 give us a hint about this?

Regarding the DUI guy, it reminds me of learning as a young pup that one of the easiest ways to spot a drunk is when he lies about his drinking….sorry, not buyin’ it.

And I would agree with Larry that Timothy was, at least at the time Paul wrote him, a teetotaler. Don’s claim, however, is that the whole church abstained, and therefore so ought we, and I simply don’t think the text can support that. There are simply too many scientific/medical, historical, and logical problems with that claim.

It seems there are acceptable addictions like coffee and Krispy Kreme Donuts.

I’m recovering from a massive heart attack last fall and doing well, thank God. I’ve learned tons about nutrition and am convinced that more of us are eating ourselves to death than drinking ourselves to death. It’s just that it’s easier to go after alcohol than potato chips. BTW, two of my cardiologists suggested a glass of wine a day. I passed because I never liked the taste of wine. They said grape juice wasn’t worth the claories and sugar content.

I’m just doing a drive-by here.

When I was researching the topic of marijuana for my Current Issues class last year I came across this article, written by a former mj user, that compares/contrasts all three substances (alcohol, marijuana, and that other one). Might be helpful in this discussion.

Earlier on this thread, John Mac Arthur’s abstinence position was referenced, and someone suggested he has been over-ruled by his Elders regarding his preference to prohibit students at TMS from drinking. I don’t know much about the rules at TMS one way or another, but I have a different explanation for Mac Arthur’s position.

He is an Abstainer, not a Prohibitionist. That is an important distinction. His personal practice is abstinence, and he personally recommends that to others. However, he knows Scripture well enough to understand that the Bible does not require abstinence, only moderation. He understands Romans fourteen well enough to know that wine consumption is a Christian liberty about which Christians may differ. He understands that he may not impose his personal recommendation as a blanket rule for others. In other words, he is being consistently Biblical. His position is identical to mine.

That’s a distinction we would all do well to understand. Abstinence is a Biblically honorable position. Prohibitionism is not. We are people of truth. We do not serve the cause of Christ well when we manipulate the Bible to try to make it teach what it does not teach, nor when we impose what the Bible does not require. That, my friends, is what the Pharisees did in Christ’s day.

Brother Barkman,

Jim Peet and Larry Nelson have presented policies and statements to show that JM has policies in place for the college and seminary that are quite strong (Thanks Jim and Larry). JM prohibits the use of intoxicating beverages for his college and seminary students. Also, he solemnly warns pastors not to imbibe.

Mike,

I’m glad to hear this. I personally would be uncomfortable sending one of my children to a Christian college that allowed use of intoxicating beverages. I view school situations as different from church’s. I’m quite sure that JM does not have an abstinence statement in his church documents, nor as a requirement for church membership. If he did, I would consider that contrary to the teaching of Romans fourteen.

Per Ron’s note, it’s worth noting that statistics indicate about 110,000 Americans die annually from abuse of alcohol and illegal drugs, whereas about 600,000 die annually from the “Standard American Diet” (SAD, yes) and lack of exercise. It’s also worth noting that drunkenness is, in a sense, gluttony for liquor. Preach against gluttony, you address drunkenness, too.

What do you preach against in churches where most don’t drink at all, if you really want to render men fit to serve Him well and preserve them until God calls them home?

And if you doubt the numbers, just look at your congregation, or calculate BMIs at a deacons’ meeting, or look at the Wednesday night “organ recitals” to see the preponderance of heart disease, diabetes, and joint problems. It’s not subtle.

(wanna get started? I highly recommend The Mayo Clinic Diet , as it starts by pointing out the big places where we Americans indulge SAD and such)

Thank you for your reponse. Your remarks bring us back to the original issue of other intoxicants. If prohibiting alcohol in a church context as a recreational beverage is a violation of Romans 14, would prohibiting marijuana, assuming it to be legalized in all the states, also be a violation of Romans 14? Wally Morris says yes. My opinion is that he is correct. You allow for the prohibition of alcohol in a seminary or college context, but not in a church context. I understand the differences between the two; nevertheless, if prohibiting it in one context is not a violation of Romans 14, then I don’t think it is a violation in the other context. The best treatment I have ever read of Romans 14 is by Dr. Mark Snoeberger at DBTS. I am sure you can access it through their website. Mark’s treatment is highly academic, brilliant, and comprehensive. I know few men with his theological and scholarly acumen. He even outdoes McCune at times and that’s saying something. Based on Mark’s presentation of Romans 14, I don’t think disallowing alcohol in a modern church context would be a violation.