Redeeming Alcohol for the Glory of God
From the esteemed Drew Goodmanson comes a post that begins by talking about Acts 29 and alcohol and ends up setting out a redemptive theology of alcohol consumption:
Most Christians hold one of 3 common views of alcohol (see: Jesus Christ-King of the Brews):
a. Prohibitionist: The Bible teaches that alcohol consumption is totally forbidden by scripture.
b. Abstentionist: Although the Bible does not expressly forbid the drinking of alcoholic beverages, the consumption of alcohol in our society is reckless and should not be condoned.
c. Moderationist: Alcohol is permitted for Christians as long as consumed in moderation and in a careful manner.All three of these positions begin in defeat. Are we willing to say anything is beyond redemption?
Intrigued? Read the whole thing. I’m very much tracking with this.
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:46 pm
After reading his post, I thought of something we were told in class as we read Dante: that, with certain rare exceptions (such as blasphemy), sin was thought of as excess indulgence in ostensibly good things–less about the act itself than about the excessiveness of the act.
Anyway. Yeah. Thanks for posting it.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Park me in category B, even though I’m not sure that category C isn’t the more correct stance.
April 4th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
May I be so bold as to inquire of the necessity of the discussion in the first instance? That is, phrasing the issue as one of “redemption” for something which is inanimate seems extraordinarily foolish to me. We humans attempt to bestow anthropomorphic attributes, i.e. good v. evil upon stuff in order avoid looking at our own hearts. Our hearts need redemption; our hearts require repentance, not what’s contained in our refrigerator.
Cheers.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
@ John, I think that perspective is helpful too (absent a few sins that are categorically evil) and could help us to avoid the kind of disabling legalism that tends to creep into churches when morality becomes a series of “Don’ts.”
@ Bernard, stance B is also very prevalent at my seminary, and I’ve gradually realized that for a lot of SBC folks, it’s been in the air for several decades. At least since prohibition, since Baptists drank with the rest of ‘em before that.
@ R. Sherman, I may see your point (feel free to clarify), but here’s how I’d respond. “Inanimate” stuff needs redemption to the extent that it has been corrupted. Case in point: the earth, including mountains, trees, etc., will be redeemed in a final sense when Jesus comes back, because he cares about his non-sentient creation too, and intended it all for good. In the meantime, we showcase evidence of that approaching outcome by redeeming things that have been broken–sex, families, vocations, alcohol. Yeah, redemption starts in human souls, but it flows outward to affect external things that can be used well or abused badly. Then those external things become signs of inner reality.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
I will concede that the Universe is corrupted, by Man’s sin. But can we say that the universe, as opposed to Man himself, is/will be redeemed? Without getting overly eschatological, it seems this Universe will be destroyed, i.e. a new Heaven and new Earth.
Yet, I think you make my point. The mere fact that something may be used v. abused indicates that there is no positive or negative quality to the thing itself. Yea, verily, one’s use may reflect the condition of one’s heart, but it is ultimately the soul of Man which determines the use/abuse to which something is put. Stated differently, a case of beer never hurt anybody until someone decided to drink it at one sitting.
Cheers.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I’m thinking along the lines of Romans 8:20-23:
“20For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.”
I’d merely point out that Jesus intended the creation to be good, not amoral.
April 6th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Jesus intended the creation to be good, not amoral.
Agreed. In fact, it was “good” until Adam muffed it. I guess, I have difficulty with the idea that something without moral agency can be be “redeemed.” I must think about this some more.
Cheers.
April 15th, 2008 at 6:52 am
If I may, I would correct the perception that ‘most Christians’ hold to one of the three views stated, as that three-point list reflects a very overstrung North American Christian take on the matter of alcohol. I’ve lived in Canada for the last twenty years, but was raised in Germany and Austria where, along with the rest of Europe, Christians’ outlook on drink is worlds apart from the one represented in that list. Among European Christians responsible use is a given; it’s a point not requiring stern reinforcement each time the topic is raised. Rather than representing ‘most’ Christians’ beliefs, it’s much more representative of North American Christians’ unique culture and spiritual journey since Prohibition.
Just a quick story on a related note: Several years ago my Grandma and I had a conversation about alcohol. At the time she told me she wished the church could require all of its members to abstain. But a few years later she told me how her (conservative Mennonite) church slowly came to accept alcohol in the life of a Christian, mainly due to an older couple who joined their church after moving from Europe to Canada. When this couple joined the church they were unaware of its attitude towards drinking. In fact, they became respected deacons in the church, but when the whole drinking issue came to light somehow, they had to make a choice: Either stay at the church but give up beer and wine, or leave the church and find another congregation more open to a lifestyle that they truly believed was acceptable for Christians to have.
They chose to leave. Grandma said this is what instigated the church’s re-evaluation of its beliefs on the issue. I feel really proud of her and of the church, because I know how difficult it can be for people to change long-held beliefs on a topic as contentious as alcohol; it takes courage and humility. Anyway, the church invited this couple to rejoin their congregation, which they did.
April 15th, 2008 at 7:01 am
Anonymous - I fail to see how this is any different from the “moderationist” viewpoint that Ariel has discussed. As a matter of fact, I see “moderationist” as EXACTLY what you are describing here.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Anonymous: Great story. Thanks for relating that account. It’s heartening to hear about cases like that where the gospel and fellowship win out over a particular history/tradition.
I can see what you’re saying re: the three perspectives, and I’d agree, in that “alcohol and the church” isn’t nearly the divisive, explosive, much-discussed issue across the pond that it is here. You could say the Christian position is moderation by default.
For the purpose of the original article, though, I’m pretty sure Goodmanson had a North American audience in mind.
April 15th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Yes, I would assume so too, Ariel.
Mr. Shuford, my take on the list is that in its entirety it is not at all indicative of European Christians’ attitudes toward alcohol. Options 1 and 2, in my experience, aren’t talked about. Meanwhile, option 3, as you mentioned, is the general belief over there, although my point is about its emphasis. When alcohol comes into the conversation here in North American circles it is always necessary to add a stern caution about moderation, while in Europe (in my experience at least) moderation is always a given - and an unspoken one at that. So it’s the whole tone and emphasis of the list to which I’m referring. Thanks for your comment!
April 15th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Anonymous - Thanks for the courtesy of the “Mr.”, but it’s not necessary. I’m just Bernard.
Thanks for explaining, but I still think I’m right
Regardless of the tone of the list, the position of European Christians still fits entirely within the moderation position, based on your comments here. If the list includes the position that is widely accepted among European Christians, then it is logically correct to say the list is representative of a group of Christians which includes European Christians. That does not exclude the fact that most or all European Christians do not ascribe to view #1 or #2, it simply states that they are included in the list.
Your position seems to be that since few or no European Christians believe in position #1 or #2, those positions should not be included in this list. However, if we assume that ALL European Christians ascribe to view #3, it is entirely correct to say that all European Christians ascribe to one of the three positions - Prohibition, Abstention, or Moderation. If most American Christians are either Prohibitionists, Abstentionists, or Moderationists, and all European Christians are Moderationists, it is completely logical and fully true to say that “Most Christians in America and Europe ascribe to one of these three positions.”
Saying the the list is wrong simply because it creates more categories than are necessary for Europe implies that the culture of Europe is the controlling culture. I don’t buy that. I maintain that Goodmanson’s statement is correct even for Europe, if the information that you are providing here is correct.
I hate it when I get argumentative. I’m sorry. Slap me.
You gotta name? I really hate it when I get argumentative with folks who have no name.
Somebody put me back in my box so I’ll shut up. This really isn’t a big deal to me, but I hate to waste it after I typed “European Christian” three thousand times… Keyboard Twister.
April 15th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I’ve tried filling my name into the name box, but was actually surprised when ‘Anonymous’ appeared in my first comment. I’m Marie, by the way.
I think we may be trying to make two different points here, and I don’t like coming across argumentative either; nor is this a big deal for me. I’m more interested in discourse analysis, so a list with a tone as the one presented isn’t representative of the discourse on alcohol among European Christians, but instead very adequately reflects the uptighness about it in NA Christian culture. The fact that such a list wouldn’t appear in Christian circles in Europe because of their unique discourse is what I’m trying to get at. What I hear from you, I think, is that you’re more interested in the technicality of the list’s inclusiveness. Is that correct?
April 15th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
There we go, the name field worked.
April 16th, 2008 at 6:10 am
Marie - Yes, I think I missed my Prozac yesterday, or something, even though I don’t take Prozac, and I was being a bit more retentive than usual…
Anyway, you make a valid point. I think the different viewpoints, believe it or not, are both culturally valid.
Alcohol in France and Italy - the homes of good wine, and Germany - the home of good beer, has a different history, a different tradition. Even Scotland, the home of good whiskey, thinks of liquor differently. It predates virtually everything except water, milk, and juices. In America, our history is different. “Moderation” is almost an unheard of word in everything American. Alcohol has been abused, people have been manipulated, and millions upon millions have been made by selling alcohol to people who weren’t very good at “handling their liquor”. Many have died because of the combination of alcohol and automobiles. I think that happens less in Europe, but I could be wrong.
I don’t know how to make my point here, it seems, because what I’m writing doesn’t even really make sense to me.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that because of the over-riding culture of alcohol ABUSE in America, I feel that Christians are much better off to take positions which are fairly hardline against alcohol. If alcohol ABUSE is less rampant in Europe, to a point where non-Christians don’t view alcohol as a sin, I don’t personally have a problem with the European position. My “gut feel” is that MANY non-Christians in America would be confused by a “proclaimed” Christian drinking alcohol. If I were to drink a beer with most of my non-Christian friends, they would most likely frown at me or else they would be happy because they “got me to drop my standards”. I don’t see that as a good Christian testimony. In other words, the North American “uptightness” is justified. So many times Europeans, Canadians, and even many Americans criticize American Christians for taking a firm position about this. I think that’s inappropriate. I do maintain that churches who claim that “the Bible says drinking is a sin, plain and simple” are making a mistake, but if that is their interpretation, by all means they should live by it. They can even preach it. But while I do understand that not everyone will feel that way, I think the “stronger Christians” sometimes need to chill out and stop deriding those prohibitionists who have genuine convictions. They are our Christian family and we Abstentionists and Moderationists need to get over this issue of alcohol and start loving THEM, too. Even if they don’t love “us”.
April 16th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Thanks for your thoughts, Bernard. I have no idea what the European stats are regarding alcohol abuse or alcohol-related traffic violations. According to the European Public Health Alliance the picture doesn’t look much different than it does here in North America. See http://www.epha.org/r/36?var_recherche=Alcohol for some interesting articles on that.
As I mentioned above, my Grandma told me at one time that she wished the church could force its members not to touch alcohol at all. But I had a problem with that, because that would mean the church not only teaching an unbiblical ‘command’, but it would also involve the church - through teaching and social pressure - co-opting the role of the Holy Spirit in telling individuals what is and is not permissable/acceptable/beneficial in their lives. The Pharisees taught and enforced man-made rules that did not originate in the Torah, and Jesus reserved his harshest judgments for them. Meanwhile, they called him a glutton and a drunkard who hung out with ’sinners’. My Grandma’s conservative church reflected a Pharisaic attitude before their change of heart towards alcohol and their re-commitment to teach only what is Biblical.
Why would her church have originally believed that an unscriptural, man-made teaching was a better testimony to the unsaved world than a Scriptural one? Why did they trust in their own logic and methods more than in Christ’s example which was clearly laid out for them in the Gospels? We humans have this tendency, I suppose, to want to take over God’s role, to tell him that we know better. But perhaps one of Jesus’ intentions in joining his ’sinner’ friends in enjoying alcoholic beverages was to teach its responsible use, which is what my family’s Christian friends in Europe aim to do as well. This lesson extends beyond alcohol, and can be a positive witness on other matters too - there is much in the world in which one can indulge to excess (with tragic consequences at times), but Christians - with God’s help - can be an example of wisdom and of self-control (one of the fruits of the spirit) in everything we do.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:31 am
I thought I should clarify myself briefly: I don’t believe all Christians ought to drink, nor that abstaining is somehow un-Christian. Individual choices are, as I said earlier, beween the individual and God. My only issue is with official/corporate theology on the issue.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:41 am
How can a group of people, who largely believe that prohibition or abstention is the best position, have a corporate position that is any different? I promise that it’s not on the Election Day ballot in November. Our corporate theology is simple the amalgamate of what we all believe.
The “official theology” you mention is simply the outcome of people who are in power in various religious organizations speaking their personal convictions loudly. Since they are the visible part of the “religious machine”, they are assumed by the rest of the world to be the voice of all of us. That is not true. Even though I am a member of a church which contributes to the Southern Baptist Convention, by no means do I support ALL the beliefs of everyone in my church, nor do I support all of the beliefs contained within the SBC. An organization that completely agrees with me doesn’t exist.
I understand your point, by the way, and I personally feel that American Christians make a big deal of alcohol for the wrong reasons. We don’t have a good Scriptural basis for our opinion, so we simply challenge the “Christianity” of anyone who dares disagree with us. That’s wrong.
I just also happen to think there are really good reasons for my personal stand against alcahawl. Most of those reasons are not in the Bible, so I don’t make them a religious issue. For Christians, I maintain that abstaining from alcohol is a different matter entirely.
April 16th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
“How can a group of people, who largely believe that prohibition or abstention is the best position, have a corporate position that is any different?”
- Good question. I would just distinguish this idea from the point at which it becomes church policy - sorry for being unclear on that point. Going back to the example of my Grandma’s church, I believe it to be unbiblical (for the reasons given earlier) for a church to insist that its deacons or other leaders abstain from alcohol. So you’re right - corporate belief isn’t exactly what I meant. It’s church-enforced behavior, and maybe also church-enforced belief, that I’m referring to.