I’m tired of hearing about this issue. It’s a dead horse
that’s been so long dead and yet people decide they still want to kick it. Most
Christians think its outright wrong, many think Christians should simply
abstain, and a few think there’s nothing wrong at all. Most non-Christians get
the idea that since the majority is against it, that it must be wrong and their
jaws drag on the floor when I take a hearty draught from a pint of my favorite
ale- and do it with gusto. So, let’s settle this. What does the Bible say about
drinking alcohol? Is it right or wrong? Let’s go.
Translational issues
The first thing to draw attention to is the use of the word
“wine.” One major law of translation and interpretation is that when a word has
multiple meanings, always use the primary meaning unless it makes no sense, in
which case move to a secondary or tertiary meaning. For example, if I say, “I’m
going to a rock concert,” you would take the primary meaning of the word
“rock”, which is “stone,” and reject it based on context, then move to a
secondary meaning which is “a music genre.” The word “wine” can also mean
“grape juice.” One way that many Christians interpret “wine” is to take any
instance where “wine” is used negatively and treat it as meaning alcohol, and
any instance where it is used positively and treat it as “grape juice.” Hence,
we have problems like in the wedding at Cana, where people will try to make the
suggestion that Jesus turned the water to grape juice, because you can translate the word “oinos” that way. This is poor
translational practice. The primary meaning of the word “oinos” is “wine,” and
unless demanded by the context, should be translated that way.
The Bible does draw a line between the alcoholic content of
drinks, and the English usually translates them as such. They are usually
divided by strong drink (OT only: rDkEv shekar), wine (OT: NˆyÅy yayin NT:
oinoß oinos), sweet wine (OT: syIsDo asis NT: gleuvkoß gleukos), and new wine(OT: vwøryI;t tirosh, NT: oinoß neoß oinos neos).
Though there are apparent lines drawn, the lines are also a tad blurry. “Wine”
can also mean grape juice, and “new wine” does not equal “unfermented wine.”
Norman Geisler says, “Some have held that old wine is
fermented but that “new wine” (vwøryIf) was always
unfermented. But two passages clearly oppose this theory. Hosea 4:11 says both
“old wine” (NˆyÅy) and “new wine” (vwøryIf) “take away the understanding.” So even “new wine” can
cause drunkenness.” (“A Christian Perspective on Wine-Drinking,” Bibliotheca
Sacra vol 139. A note on Geisler- he’s a
hit and miss. Most anti-alcohol sites on the net will source this article, as
it is condescending of wine drinking, but his handling of Scripture is poor, he
jumps to conclusions that are unsubstantiated, and uses early church sources as
if they were infallible. Take the good, spit out the bad- in a few instances
he’s right, as he is here.) The only true line that can be drawn is between
“wine” and “strong drink,” and the latter is only used in the Old Testament.
“Strong drink” is equivalent to our use of “liquor,” meaning alcohol of a
higher content. “Wine” is more of a generic word that can refer to grape based
wines to barley wines like beer, and other more moderate drinks.
My point here is to stay away from interpretations that try to favor one translation over another based on point of view. Words can be taken multiple ways, but it is up to the skilled translator and interpreter to decide how the passage should be read. The author’s opinion is that in every case, “wine” should be taken as meaning an alcoholic beverage. There is no Biblical instance where the word “wine” has a more preferable interpretation of being “grape juice” based on immediate context.
My point here is to stay away from interpretations that try to favor one translation over another based on point of view. Words can be taken multiple ways, but it is up to the skilled translator and interpreter to decide how the passage should be read. The author’s opinion is that in every case, “wine” should be taken as meaning an alcoholic beverage. There is no Biblical instance where the word “wine” has a more preferable interpretation of being “grape juice” based on immediate context.
How is Alcohol Used in (not 'by') the Bible?
Outright, we can say that in every
instance, drunkenness is wrong. It is declared a sin over and over again. There
simply is no question about this. There are two types of drunkenness, and a
third that we will refer to as “glad of heart,” which is taken as drunken by
many Christians. Alcohol was also used as a medicine, we will only discuss that
in short.
The first type of drunkenness is
the everyday drunk. Isaiah says, “Woe to those who rise early in
the morning that they may pursue strong drink” (Isa 5:11). This is the person
that can be truly called an alcoholic. Not many fit into this mold, but we’ll
address it simply to say that is a sin. Addiction to anything is frowned upon
by Biblical authors, and alcohol is given special treatment.
The second type is the “one-off” drunk. Either the person
who has a little too much on accident or likes to party occasionally. The
teaching here once again is, “Do not be drunk with wine, for that is
dissipation, but be filled with the Holy Spirit.” (Eph 5:28) Christians are not
supposed to get drunk, whether intentionally or by accident. Personally, its
happened to me a few times, and I have regretted it each time, and count it as
sin. Rightfully so.
The major one to look at is “glad of heart.” Anyone who has
drank alcohol knows this feeling. The best way to explain this is to use the
description that often goes with alcohol, “Alcohol is a drink best shared.”
Now, the non-drinker will immediately write of a feeling of any of the effects
of alcohol as “drunkenness,” but this is not so. The Bible praises alcohol for
its effects, and wine is praised as being good for mankind. The Psalmist
praises the Lord for his provision in Ps 104:14-15: “He
causes the grass to grow for the cattle, And vegetation for the labor of man,
So that he may bring forth food from the earth, wine which makes man’s heart
glad, that he may make his face glisten
with oil, And food which sustains man’s heart.” Here God is thanked for giving
us wine, and for the effect of wine, which is to make “man’s heart glad.”
Solomon says in Ecc 9:7 to “drink your wine with a cheerful heart,” and again
in 10:19 that “wine makes life merry.” The one thing that I think of when I
read these passages is when I’m at a Christians house and a beer commercial
comes on and someone says something to the effect of, “Look at them, they think
they’re having fun.” Or when a preacher condemns alcohol commercials for always
having a social, good-time feel to them, and then saying that they don’t know
what true fun is. The fact is, the Bible itself says that alcohol is great for
making merry, it makes man happy, and its okay to drink it for that reason.
There is no Biblical statement or principal that can take away the blessing
that alcohol is for humanity. As Ben Franklin said, “Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our
vineyards, there it enters the roots of the vines, to be changed into wine, a
constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy.”
We are told several times that
alcohol was used for medicine; in 2 Sam 16:2, Luke 10:34, and 1 Tim 5:23. Not
too many people use alcohol as a medicine nowadays, so there’s not too much use
in discussing it. I will address one more passage though, Proverbs 31:6. Our
friend who we quoted previously, Norman Geisler, throws this passage under the
“medicine” heading, by saying this: “Give
strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to him whose life is bitter”
(Prov 31:6). This indicates that strong drink was used as a sedative or
pain-killer for the dying, and that wine was also used to calm the nerves of
those who were deeply bereaved or in deep distress.” I think this is a
misappropriation. I think that he is understating what is being said here. For
the dying person, alcohol was given so they didn’t feel the effects of death,
be it pain or whatever. It was to dull their senses. Calling it a “medicine”
may not necessarily be wrong, but its not altogether correct either. I could
huff the nitrous out of a bottle of whip cream and it would be the exact same
thing as what the dentist gives me, but I wouldn’t call it medicine. In the
second case, “calming the nerves” isn’t using alcohol as a medicine. Its
inviting a sorrowful friend out for a beer. By giving it to them, you’re
indicating that you’re in their presence. You don’t just tell them to go drink
their sorrows away or to take a teaspoon of alcohol at night, you go have a
drink with them, to “make their heart glad.” It gets lumped in with the above
paragraph on the benefits of alcohol. It can be used to cheer someone up.
Specific Passages
Ok, now lets look at some debated
passages.
Deut 14:22, 24-26:
“You shall surely tithe all the produce from what you sow, which comes out of the field every year.”“If the distance is so great for you that you are not able to bring the tithe, since the place where the LORD your God chooses to set His name is too far away from you when the LORD your God blesses you, then you shall exchange it for money, and bind the money in your hand and go to the place which the LORD your God chooses. You may spend the money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.”
This passage is discussing how
Israel should tithe, and more specifically, what to do when you cannot make the
journey to tithe. In that case, a person is to take his tithe, buy whatever he
wants, and eat before the Lord.
Norman Geisler has this to say on this passage, “The passage in Deuteronomy 14:26 which appears to commend buying “strong drink” (r;DkEv) cannot be used as a divine approval for drinking it for three reasons. First, the Old Testament clearly condemns drinking “strong drink,” as the above passage indicates. Therefore this isolated and unclear passage must be understood in harmony with the clear Old Testament teaching against “strong drink.” Second, the passage does not say they should drink it but only that they should buy it. Third, “strong drink” was used for medicinal purposes, so the commendation is probably to buy medicine (see Prov 31:6).”
Norman Geisler has this to say on this passage, “The passage in Deuteronomy 14:26 which appears to commend buying “strong drink” (r;DkEv) cannot be used as a divine approval for drinking it for three reasons. First, the Old Testament clearly condemns drinking “strong drink,” as the above passage indicates. Therefore this isolated and unclear passage must be understood in harmony with the clear Old Testament teaching against “strong drink.” Second, the passage does not say they should drink it but only that they should buy it. Third, “strong drink” was used for medicinal purposes, so the commendation is probably to buy medicine (see Prov 31:6).”
First, the OT does not condemn
drinking “strong drink” alone. In every passage Geisler quotes in his paper,
the Bible also condemns wine alongside it, and yet as stated above, wine is
given as a blessing. It is only condemned when it is overused. We also talked
about Prov 31:6 and using it as a “medicinal” passage. One must wonder, were
people dying in such numbers, or were that many people depressed that a person
could potentially buy “strong drink” every year? C’mon. The context says,
“whatever your heart desires.” An ox could be viewed as a new car or a tractor,
a pretty hot commodity. Sheep had a number of uses. And wine and strong drink?
Are we really supposed to buy the idea that a desire of the heart would be for
medicine? "Man, I really want some medicine, that would make me sooo happy right now." No, it was used to drink, to rejoice with one’s household. And to use
Dr. Geisler’s logic, the passage doesn’t say that it couldn’t be used to drink, so, yeah. In all, the Lord states
himself that it was ok to buy wine and strong drink, and within the same
context commands that people rejoice. It is my opinion that this is as clear as
it gets to saying that the Lord is ok with drinking, of course taking in hand
the condemnation of drunkenness.
John 2:7-10
Jesus said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.” So they filled them up to the brim. And He said to them, “Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.” So they took it to him. When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom, and said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.”
I love this passage in reference
to this topic. I love it because I simply, laughingly, cannot believe that
people honestly believe that Jesus turned water to grape juice. That may seem
harsh, and I apologize for it, but it’s the honest truth. About as honest as I
love John 1:1 because I, in the same way, cannot believe people can take it to
say that Jesus wasn’t God. Gimme a break!
Point 1: Jesus was a Jew. He was
at a Jewish wedding fest. He was with other Jews. Jews drank wine. Fact. If
Jesus served grape juice at the wedding fest 1) there would be a riot, and 2)
it would make no sense of the headwaiter’s words. The headwaiter says, “…you
have kept the good wine until now.” Firstly, saying “you have kept the good
wine” insinuates that whatever Jesus served was of the same essence as what was
previously served. So, if Jesus turned water to grape juice, we would assume
from the headwaiter’s words that they had been serving grape juice previously.
A completely unjustified interpretation. Secondly, if Jesus “kept the good wine
until now,” he’s saying that whatever Jesus made was better than whatever was
served previously. Grape juice better than wine? Seriously? I want some of this
grape juice. I’ve had some really, really good wine in my day, and I have yet to
drink a grape juice that even somewhat compares. Please find me some of this
stuff! All joking aside, it doesn’t make any sense. Grape juice does not
compare to wine, nor would a headwaiter- someone who deals in wine- compare the
two.
Point 2: The headwaiter
specifically states that people were getting drunk on the stuff he was serving.
He says in full, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people
have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good
wine until now.” First things first- Greek. The words “drunk freely” is the
singular word mequo (methuo) in the original Greek. In context, the specific word is mequsqwsin (methusthosin), which is in the aorist tense. The aorist tense, in simple
terms, means “past completed.” It is something that has taken place in the past
that is complete. Translated, it would say, “…and when the people have
already become drunk…” What the headwaiter
is saying is that people have already become drunk, especially by his last
line, “…until now.” Balancing the verse may sound something like this, “Every
man serves the good wine first, and when the people have already become drunk,
he serves the poorer wine, but you have saved the good wine for when people
have already become drunk.” It is
essentially a picture of the Law vs Grace. Jesus is the better wine, and he was
served last. Nonetheless, the interpretation of this passage insofar as
deciding the alcohol content of the wine is solely dependant on the words of
the headwaiter. His language, from the Greek words used to the way he phrases
himself, makes no room whatsoever for anything other than an alcoholic
beverage. There is simply no wiggle room here. Jesus turned water into wine.
The Last Supper
We’re going to look at two
different passages, as they’re referring to the same event anyway. The first is
Luke 22:20:
And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.”
Before I get to the second
passage, I want to address something I’ve heard before in relation to this
passage specifically. I’ve had it stated to me that “this cup” refers to any
beverage in general, and is a freedom from God to not be bound to drinking
alcohol during communion. In essence, “this cup” should be taken generically,
instead of “this wine.” This is profoundly incorrect. “This cup” should indeed
be taken as a specific cup within the Passover meal. We have to remember not to
“Christianize” Jesus. Jesus was not doing a Communion service. He was taking part
in Passover. There’s a bit to be learned about Passover to show what exactly
was going on here. We’ll only focus on a part of it. In the Matthew’s account,
the order goes:
1) Judas dips with Jesus and is shown to be the traitor
2)
Jesus breaks the bread
3)
Jesus drinks the cup
4)
Jesus states he will not drink from
the “fruit of the vine” until his second coming
This order is important, because
the order of the Passover seder is
1)
Bitter herbs are served with unleavened bread
2)
The meal is eaten
3)
The second matzah, which was broken and hidden, is retrieved
and served.
4)
The third cup, the cup of Redemption, is served.
So we see a parallel here. Judas was shown to be the
betrayer during the serving of the bitter herbs. The meal is not stated. “My
body which is broken for you” is shown to be the second piece of unleavened
bread. Finally, “This is my blood of the covenant,” is shown to be the third
cup, the cup of Redemption. So, why in Luke does Jesus say, “this cup”? Because he’s pointing at a specific cup during
the Passover meal. There is a reason for using the word “this,” and it isn’t to
make the cup a generic “whatever you feel like” beverage. Instead, it is to
identify Himself as the Redeemer. On to the next passage.
“But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” (Matt 26:29)
Ok, so what was it that Jesus
drank? Was it grape juice? Some will answer yes. Nope. It has already been
identified that Jesus was taking part in the Passover. First off, Passover was
served with wine, not with grape juice. Done. No arguments. Second, following
what was said above about the order of the Passover, he’s saying this for a
specific reason, which is that he will not drink the fourth cup of the
Passover until after his return. The
fourth cup is the cup of Completion. He can’t take it yet, because things have
not been completed. So what will we drink with Christ in Heaven? We will very
specifically drink the Fourth cup of the Passover, which is wine. I highly
doubt anyone will have any complaints when that day comes. I know I will certainly be raising a glass that day!
Romans 14
This whole chapter deals with
matters of the conscience, so I’m not going to quote the whole thing, nor am I
going to do a verse by verse presentation of the passage. I’m just going to
make a few points about specific parts. There is also a parallel passage in 1
Cor 8:7-13. Read that one too.
The context: We have Jews living
in Rome who are living according to their own customs, namely, abstaining from
eating meat and drinking wine that had been served to idols. They wouldn’t do
it. On the other hand, the Romans were Gentiles who hadn’t been raised under
the Law, and didn’t have the same reservations. To them, it was just food and
drink, no big deal. The problem was that essentially the Jews were viewing the
Romans as sinners, and the Romans were throwing their liberty in the Jews’
faces. Wrong on both sides.
First off, the passage is directed
at the Romans. “Accept the one who is weak in faith.” Right off the bat, the
Jews are being called weak. Why? Because they lack the faith to realize that
the meat is simply that, just meat. “One person has faith that he may eat all
things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only.” So Paul is identifying one party as strong and the other
as weak. This chapter is essentially Ben Parker telling Peter Parker that,
“With great strength comes great responsibility.” Paul is telling the Romans to
take care with their weaker brothers, and not to be a stumbling block to them.
Speaking of which, jump down to
verses 13 and 20. Usually, the drinkers and non-drinkers are on the same page
up to this point. At vs 13 and 20 though, the non-drinkers usually point here
and say that Christians are to abstain from anything that could offend another
Christian. Let’s go to Greek again. First off, the word “offense” in v20 is the
same word used for “obstacle” in v13. Second, look at 1 Pet 2:8- Jesus is
called by Peter “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.” Same two words
are used in Peter as are used in Romans. The point of the two words is to
convey an action that causes a person to fall away from Christ for good. The
Greek words themselves both have the connotation of tiger traps, or of falling into
a pit and dying. This is not simply seeing someone lighting a cigarette and you turning your nose up at it. Paul is referring to the kind of action that tempts a person into a sin that ensnares them so much that they don’t come away from it
again. Like going out with an abstaining church family that has teenagers and
ordering a beer in front of them. Not something too commendable. All of the
“stumbling” language used throughout the chapter should be read in this light.
In teaching on this passage I usually reference a story I once heard about D.L.
Moody and Charles Spurgeon. Supposedly, Spurgeon and Moody were together in
America and Spurgeon, an avid smoker, lit up a cigar in front of Moody. Moody
marched over to him and said, “That, sir, offends me.” Spurgeon pointed at
Moody’s stomach and said, “That offends
me.” Moody was a very large man. You
get the idea. What may be offensive to one person may not be offensive to
another, which leads us to my last point on this passage.
Verse 22 says,
The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.
The idea of the whole passage is
that whatever you do, don’t be convicted by it, and don’t disapprove of the one
who doesn’t match your own convictions. Everyone is lead by the Spirit in
different ways, and each is lead according to how much faith he has. One person
may only be able to handle so much of one thing, while another person is able
to handle a different amount. The importance is for the one who has little
faith not to condemn the one who is stronger (the one who takes part), and for
the one who takes part not to be irresponsible with his weaker brother. So, for
the alcohol topic- if you think drinking is wrong, don’t call those who disagree
sinners. Don’t frown when they talk about it. Don’t tell them that they can’t
do it, or bar them from ministry if they do. On the flip side, if you do drink,
watch out who you’re drinking with. Don’t flaunt it. Don’t be telling the
teenagers in your youth group how awesome beer is. Be responsible with your
actions. At the same time, don’t hide it- as Paul says, “Therefore do not let
what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil.”
Christian Lifestyle & Ethics
issues
The Different Positions
Typically there are three ways to
view the use of alcohol in the Christian life. They are usually defined as:
1) Abstinence- Christians are not to drink at all.
2)
Reservation- There is nothing wrong
with alcohol, but there is no need to drink it, so Christians certainly
shouldn’t drink.
3)
Moderation- There is nothing wrong
with alcohol and the Biblical guideline is not to get drunk off it, nor be a
slave to it. Its fine as long as it is enjoyed responsibly.
The first one can be written off.
There is no single piece of Scripture that states that it is wrong to drink
alcohol. There is no single piece of Scripture that states that specific
members of the Church are to abstain either, specifically, those holding
office.
The second one is where we really
find the argument lies. Most people will fall here, though their reasons for
being there are due more to ignorance than anything. The majority of people
that I talk to don’t want to say that the Bible says its wrong, because it
doesn’t, but at the same time they’ve been raised to believe that drinking is
essentially wrong, so they find a happy medium by saying that there’s nothing
wrong with it, but that Christians shouldn’t do it. It is almost equivalent to
people being Theistic Evolutionists, they’re trying to find a happy medium that
ends up contradicting itself anyway. I go to Romans 14 for this one. If you
don’t think its okay for yourself, that’s fine! But don’t hold it as a
universal ethic for all Christians. That is quite simply legalism. What is fine
for you may not be fine for someone else, and you cannot hold someone to your
own personal convictions. I once dated a girl that on our first date told me
that she thought there was nothing wrong with alcohol, but was raised in a
non-alcoholic household, and when she married, would not allow alcohol into her
house. That was enough for me, and I was just about to order a glass of wine!
Ha ha, with dating we can just part ways and call it “incompatible,” but with
the Church it’s a little different. Legalism can be defined as “applying one’s
own convictions to another person, and holding that person accountable to them.” Let’s
make sure we are not doing this, and as I’ve already defended the use of
alcohol through Scripture, this applies to alcohol as well. We cannot bar each
other from actions related merely to conscience.
Alcohol content
The strongest argument usually
levied by those against alcohol was (to my knowledge) first put forth in an
article called “Wine-Drinking in New Testament Times,” by Robert H. Stein. In
it, he puts forth the argument that the wine drank by people in NT times, as
well as by the Church fathers had water added to it, usually mixed in a 3:1
water/wine ratio, and therefore our wine that we get out of the bottle is not
the same, and would be considered “strong drink.” Norman Geisler, who’s article
is quoted all over on anti-alcohol websites, leans heavily on Stein’s article.
I have a number of issues with
this position. First off has to do with what was already mentioned about John
2:10 and the words of the headwaiter. Stein asserts that “one would have
to drink over twenty-two glasses…to consume the amount of alcohol that is in
two martinis,” and that, “...one’s drinking would probably affect the bladder long
before it affected the mind.” How does that mesh with what the headwaiter said
at Jesus’ wedding? Are we to assume that the people attending had already drank
at minimum 15 glasses before Jesus turned the water to wine? I don’t know about
you, but I can’t drink that much. Anyone who’s done stupid college stuff knows
the old gallon of water in an hour challenge. You simply can’t do it. You throw
up or give up before the hour is up. It simply makes more sense to assume that
the people were drinking regular wine, in the range of 10-13% abv.
Second, I have a question which has not been answered yet,
but I suppose it could get answered if I went on maybe a home brewing forum or
something like that. The article in question assumes that “watering down” wine
is the same as taking a bottle of our store-bought wine and adding water to it. Gross. My
question is- is it possible that what was being watered down was some form of a
concentrated mix, and that our wine today already is watered down? It makes
sense to me that possibly people bought concentrated wine because it may have been
easier to store, and since it was drank in such quantity, it would be much
easier to mix at home than to buy it pre-mixed and needing to continually run
to the market for more. I don’t know. My point I guess is that there is an
assumption being made in the article that isn’t thought through, something related to the actual brewing process. I know that with beer, water is added at different stages. Could it be the same with wine? Maybe a certain stage of the fermenting process is pushed off until the purchaser decides to do it at home? Until I get
this question answered, I’m throwing the whole thing out the window, because
you cannot condemn what comes out of the bottle until you know what you’re
comparing it to.
Third, and regardless of the previous two, comes the
question of where to draw the line. How much alcohol is allowed before it is
“dissipation?” 5%? 2%? 9%? Who knows? Who can say? There really is no way to
say. Concluding that we should therefore just stay away from alcohol altogether
goes against the praises of it that I mentioned above. My personal feeling on
this is that no matter what the abv or proof is on the bottle, just don’t get
drunk on it. Otherwise, alcohol is alcohol, whether its wine, gin, beer, or
whatever.
Barring Ministers from Drinking
This is one that really bothers me the most. Not just
ministers, but anyone in ministry really. No saint has the authority to place
a law not given in Scripture on another saint. I’ve already pointed that out as
being straight up legalism. There is a logic to it though, and of course, I’ve
got a refutation of it!
The thought process goes like this: If a person in the
congregation (let’s say a teenager, they’re nice and impressionable) finds out
a person on staff drinks. Now they may use that as an excuse to go drinking
themselves. If such were the case, then the staff member could be found at
fault for causing, or at least being a reason, for someone else’s sin. A
teenager is underage. Alcohol is attractive to them. If they found out their youth
pastor drinks, they might say, “Well he does it, so why can’t I?”
My refutation is found in a simple parallel. If it works for
alcohol, it needs to work for other scenarios as well. Teenagers (high
schoolers) aren’t married. Sex is attractive to them. If their youth pastor is
married, we can safely assume he’s having sex with his wife. A teen could go
ahead and start having sex and say, “Well he does it, so why can’t I?”
Would we blame the youth pastor in such an instance? Nope. Why? Because its silly. The kid knew it was wrong and needs to take
responsibility for his own behavior. GUESS WHAT? Is the same with alcohol.
Legal age is 21. If a teen drinks, its on him or her. Not the youth pastor’s
fault.
In both cases, you have an adult partaking in something
along Biblical guidelines, and that something is forbidden to a certain class
of people. In both cases, their partaking has been made a temptation to the
person of the other class. I appeal to you that there is no difference between
the two of them. If a person can be barred from drinking alcohol while on
staff, a person should be barred from marital sexuality while on staff as well.
And heck, it could be anything. A pastor’s wife should never braid her hair, or
wear a skirt above the knee. An elder should never wear jeans to Church.
Whatever. The idea is that people can be tempted by a plethora of things, and
who’s in charge to put limits on people? Go to Romans 14. To put a law on
someone according to your own conscience is for the weaker brother to rule over
the stronger, and it is sin. There, I
said it. It is sin to bar a
Christian from something that the Spirit is not convicting him or her of.
Trying to gloss over it by quoting 1 Cor 8:13 is missing the picture. In that
passage, Paul is discussing something that has been given up by him according
to his own conscience. It was not set in front of him as a written contract,
nor was it stated by someone that he must conform to it to speak or serve in a
given Church. Marriage was given up by Paul of his own will according to his
own convictions. So should it be with alcohol.
Also, to bar someone from something that is not considered
wrong by the one doing it could be a cause of sin to them, in which case, a
contract or spoken agreement could be a stumbling block. Think of it this way-
if I say “don’t think of an alligator,” what did you just do? You thought of an
alligator. Is there anything wrong with it? Nope. So if I said not to do it,
why did you? That’s our nature. If there is nothing wrong with something, and
you’re fully convinced there’s nothing wrong with it, it is very likely you’ll
brush the law to the side and do it anyway. So for a Church board to bar a
member of the Church from a certain activity, in this case alcohol, could very
well be a cause of sin. Once that contract or agreement is made, it is sin to
the person to breach the contract. Would it be necessary to breach it by
drinking? Nope, one could very easily do it in one’s heart. If said person was
with friends or family and they were all drinking, it would be very easy to
fall into lust, or more realistically, to succumb to peer pressure, because in
all actuality there isn’t anything wrong with what they are doing, instead, the
law imposed on them made it wrong. This flows with Paul’s logic stated in Rom
7:7,
On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.”
I’m not trying to apply this verse to the topic, I’m just
saying that it follows the same logic. By placing a law before another person,
you make what was once not sin to be sin. Therefore, it is my opinion that no Church
organizing body should prohibit its membership, lay or pastoral, from partaking
in any activity that would be considered “decisions/acts of the conscience.”
Conclusion
I hope I’ve clearly made my case. I do not believe that
there is any Biblical reason in any of the glorious 66 books that can be used
to make a case against drinking alcohol responsibly. Drunkenness aside, alcohol
is a gift of God to make life better. I love it. Beer is one of my favorite
things and I relish it. I can’t think of better times in my life than sitting
around a table with friends or family and enjoying alcohol together and
laughing. The Bible in no way condemns this behavior, and neither should any
Christian. It is something to be used responsibly however, and as with any
other matter of the conscience, our liberty should not be a cause of sin to
another. On the flip side, no Christian should ever condemn another Christian
nor bar them from the partaking of alcohol. Not only do they not have the
right, but it is sin to the one that does it. I hope this has helped you all a
bit in your understanding. Hopefully I’ll get back to writing again and stop
taking so many breaks between blogs ha ha.
In Him,
Mike
No comments:
Post a Comment
Add your comment here!