40 Sermon Illustrations on Abstinence

A man once addicted to intemperance, but who for some months had entirely abstained, though he had not joined the Temperance Society, took occasion not long since to relate, in a temperance meeting, his experience in regard to the influence of temperate drinkers of respectable standing in society, upon the habits of the drunkard. "Many a time," said he, "have I gone to Captain Johnson's tavern and waited for half an hour, or an hour, for some respectable man to come in and go to the bar and call for liquor. After a while, Deacon Barnes would come in and call for some spirit and water. Then I could get up to the bar and do as he did."

Deacon Barnes hearing of this, asked him if it was so.

"It is," said the man.

"Well," rejoined the deacon, "you shall hang on me no longer. I joined the Temperance Society yesterday."

"Did you?"

"Yes."

"Well, then I will join to-day, for I can do without liquor as long as Deacon Barnes can." He did join, and remained a consistent temperance man afterwards.

# 4. Illustrious Examples of Total Abstinence.

Samuel Saucerman is the originator of the “Trimmer Band,” which is an unique and effective method of promoting temperance and thrift in the young, from nine to sixteen years of age. To every boy in the State of Iowa who will take the pledge to _abstain from tobacco in every form_, _intoxicating liquor_, _gambling_ and _profane language_, Mr. Saucerman will give $1.00 upon his joining one of these “Trimmer Bands,” and will pay him _one cent a day for three years_, and _another_ $1.00 at the end of that period. Members of these “Bands” are urged to save their nickels and dimes, which would otherwise be spent for tobacco and liquor, and also hold monthly meetings to discuss economy, finance, clean living, and everything in line with industry and morals. To show good faith, each boy must deposit 50 cents with his first dollar, and at the end of the three years, even if he has not himself saved a cent, he will have $12.00. The object is to establish habits of saving, which will enable every boy at twenty-one to have saved sufficient to start him in life, or to go to college.--JAMES T. WHITE, “Character Lessons.”

* * * * *

An English writer refers thus to some impressions of a brother Englishman, traveling through the United States:

When traveling through the United States some years ago, he was much struck with the difference in appearance of the houses in districts where the Maine liquor law was in force, and soon learned to distinguish where it was adopted, by the clean, cheerful look of the workmen’s dwellings, the neatness of the gardens, and the presence of trees and flowers which, in other districts, were wanting. He was not a teetotaler himself, and was not advocating such restrictions; but he could not help noticing the contrast; and he felt sure that in all our large towns great progress in civilization and morals would be effected if such an attraction were offered to the working classes.

It is another of the long line of illustrations showing the intimate connection between moral and material weal.

“A Swedish teacher going abroad for study,” writes the Karlstadt _Tidning_, “gave a patriotic lecture in the cabin of a North Sea steamer to Swedish emigrants. After it was over a nice-looking young fellow came up to him and said: ‘Greet the dear old land for me when you return. I should never leave it if the prohibition rescript continued in force. You see, I am a drinking man, tho I have a wife and children to care for. I have a good employment always open to me in Stockholm, but I don’t dare take it. For a whole month under prohibition I have been a free and happy man. If it had continued I should have stayed in Sweden, but now I am making for some American prohibition State where I can’t get drink.’ And he was not the only one. Other passengers said the same thing. The five weeks had brought hope into their life and they were going where the law helped them rather than crusht them.”--_The Christian Statesman._

See ABSTAINERS LIVE LONG.

TOTAL ABSTINENCE, VALUE OF

Here is testimony from the medical examiners of prominent life insurance companies as to the value of abstinence from alcohol:

(1) I note that you ask whether or not we believe, other things being equal, that the use of alcoholic drinks is a personal handicap and increases the actuarial risk. In reply to this question we must certainly answer in the affirmative. There have been numerous articles written and numerous statistics compiled on the effect of total abstinence, and they show without question that the mortality experienced among total abstainers has been decidedly less than that experienced among moderate drinkers.

(2) This company prefers total abstainers for insurance risks. This is from a selfish standpoint, as we are forced to believe they are better risks for the company. We are imprest by the large number of applicants living in the States of Alabama and Georgia who say they drank periodically or regularly before prohibition went into effect, but do not drink anything now. If prohibition in Alabama and Georgia and the “dry” counties of Indiana has done nothing else, it has made a difference in the answers given by applicants to this company.

(3) We thoroughly agree with all authorities that the moderate use of alcohol tends to shorten life and increases the hazard incident to life insurance.--_Prohibition Year Book._

A $2.5 million program in Philadelphia designed to lower teen pregnancy rates by increasing contraceptive awareness had little impact, according to a recent study published in Family Planning Perspectives.

Sociologists extensively surveyed teens both before and after the two-year program to measure its impact. By expanding contraceptive services in clinics, targeting neighborhoods with teens especially at risk for pregnancy, the program intended to reduce pregnancy rates.

Despite initial evidence that pointed toward success, a final analysis showed no improvement in the target areas in comparison to the rest of the city. In fact, pregnancy rates actually increased slightly during the two-year period among the target area and the city at large.

"Our results suggest that devoting increased resources to teenage clinics ... is ineffective in ... reducing pregnancy rates in the teenage population," the authors reported.

The authors suggest the best strategy for reducing the U.S. teen birth rate is a drive to make sexual abstinence the norm.

"One strategy, consistent with our data, is to focus on changing what is considered normal behavior for teenagers through intensive public health campaigns akin to those focusing on smoking," they noted. With such a strategy, over time behavioral norms could shift "toward abstinence and safer sex," they added.

Two recent studies have bolstered conservatives' claims about abstinence and teenage substance abuse.

A study published in the latest edition of the journal Adolescent & Family Health found that 67 percent of the drop in the single teen pregnancy rate from 1991-95 was due to abstinence, not birth control. This counters a study released by the Alan Guttmacher Institute in 1999 saying that contraception was the major factor in the drop.

Meanwhile, another study has shown the positive impact religion can have on a teen's life. According to the study -- published in the March issue of the journal Psychology of Addictive Behaviors -- teens who consider religion important in their lives are half as likely as other teens to drink heavily or smoke marijuana and cigarettes.

Three researchers at Yeshiva University in New York conducted the substance abuse study.

“These buffering effects could be occurring because religiosity may influence a person's attitudes and values, providing meaning and purpose in life,” researcher Thomas Ashby Wills said in a statement. “It could also help persons to view problems in a different way.

“Besides offering coping techniques, being involved with a religion can also create more healthy social networks than adolescents would have if they got involved with drugs to find social outlets.”

The pregnancy study looked at various data, including the drop in the teen birth rate from 1991-95 (the latest data available) and the increase in abstinent teens during that time. “Teens” were defined as girls age 15-19.

The study utilized data from the National Vital Statistics Records, National Survey of Family Growth and the Alan Guttmacher Institute. The number of pregnancies per 1,000 teen girls decreased from 115.8 in 1991 to 101.1 in 1995, according to the study. At the same time, the number of unmarried teen girls who were abstinent -- defined as never having had sex or not having had sex in the past year -- increased from 53 percent to 56 percent, the study said.

The study was conducted by New Jersey physician Joanna Mohn, University of North Carolina-Greensboro professor Lynne Tingle and Colorado physician Reginald Finger.

“These findings support the significance of the growing movement of teens choosing to abstain from sex,” they wrote. “... [T]his study demonstrates the important role of increased sexual abstinence in reducing the single teen and overall teen pregnancy rates.”

The study of religion's effects on teens followed 1,182 teens in New York City from seventh to 10th grade, utilizing surveys each school year. The importance of religion was determined by asking the teens to rate various statements from “not at all important” to “very important”: “To believe in God”; “To be able to rely on religious teachings when you have a problem”; “To be able to turn to prayer when you're facing a personal problem”; and “To rely on your religious beliefs as a guide for day-to-day living.”

The study did not break the samples down into sub-categories, such as effects of evangelical Christianity.

The research found that teens who consider religion an important part of their lives were half as likely to be involved in “heavy drinking, cigarette smoking and marijuana use.” There was little difference in overall alcohol use, the study said.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #6284]

"The only way for a rich man to be healthy is by exercise and

abstinence, to live as if he were poor."

- William Temple

I think you would call my daughter's experience of male/female relationships thoroughly biblical, but I am not sure about what is and is not courtship.

Cathy was friendly with a lot of young people, both male and female, but all relationships were clearly honourable and platonic.

Then, one Valentine's Day, a young man sent Cathy a bunch of roses by Interflora [or was it a bevy of rosellas by InterFauna? ... Aussie joke, sorry.]

This young fellow had apparently done similar things with several young ladies in our church. He was about 10 years older than Cathy, and when she got some flowers from Ian, we didn't even know who Ian was. She went out with him once and had a long talk, but never saw him again.

About 10 months later he married Anne, and although they have both had some illness, I think they are very happy.

Then we started getting phonecalls from Phil, who was working with Cathy in our youth group. After a while it became evident that they were very good friends, and although they began seeing a lot of each other their relationship was so platonic, we wondered if they were normal!

They spent time praying, talking and listening to tapes of sermons from young people's conventions together, and yet seemed so restrained and modest, compared with many of our young people, who seem to be lovey-dovey from the first 30 seconds of their relationship onwards.

After they decided to get engaged, they became a tiny bit more close, physically speaking. [But you could still go into a room and find Phil in one corner and Cathy in another, laughing and chatting away!]

As their marriage approached they became physically closer, but were still very restrained. I never once came into their presence and suffered the slightest embarrassment: I was always welcomed. There was never anything to make me feel uncomfortable at any time.

They got married on 16th January, and I wish that other young people could have seen the way their relationship developed. I have not read "Friends For Life" but I guess that they have captured the author's ideal. It truly was a Christian friendship first.

I am so glad that they did not begin with physical attraction, or blatant sex. I believe that they they have been a wonderful model to the kids they led in youth group. I am very proud of them.

David McKay

One of Christianity Today's earliest cover stories examined alcohol on the 25th anniversary of Prohibition's repeal.

__________________________

With regard to the use of alcoholic beverages, my practice and teaching are those of total abstinence. This stand is based on biblical principles, but I am free to confess that it is not based on biblical precepts or biblical practice. Both the Old and the New Testaments enjoin moderation rather than total abstinence. How then can one describe one's position as biblical if it goes beyond the Bible?

An analogy is to be found in the case of slavery. Nowhere in the Bible is the institution condemned, and from the time of the patriarchs to Philemon the worthies of both dispensations owned slaves. Many of the injunctions addressed in the New Testament to servants, according to the older versions, are correctly directed in the Revised Standard Version to slaves. The defenders of slavery in the South before the war made out a very plausible case from the Bible. Thereupon the Quaker historian Henry C. Lea satirized their plea by making an equally good case in all apparent seriousness for polygamy, which was practiced in the Old Testament and nowhere expressly forbidden in the New Testament. Yet few in this land today would fail to agree that Christian principles require alike the emancipation of slaves and the abandonment of polygamy. Similarly one may argue that Christian principles call for abstinence from intoxicating beverages.

SPIRIT AGAINST LETTER

Yet an exegesis which deduces from Christian principles a position at variance with early Christian practice may well appear strained. This is the old question of the spirit against the letter, the question whether the Bible is a code of laws or an enunciation of principles. The Old Testament itself discloses both views. The Pentateuch is the Torah, the Law, whereas Jeremiah called for a New Covenant graven not on tables of stone, but on hearts of flesh. Judaism tended, however, to forget the prophets and to build up the law as the only feasible focus for the religious life of the people. Christianity rebelled against the legalism of Judaism. Jesus transgressed the laws of the Sabbath and Paul declared the law to be abrogated. But legalism crept speedily again into Christianity. The precepts of Jesus were treated as legal demands and the Church in the Middle Ages built up so many regulations about holy days and clean and unclean foods that Christianity had come to resemble closely the Judaism of Jesus' day.

ANOTHER CYCLE

The Reformation was another revolt. The rules were abrogated, but the cycle recommenced. The Bible was so potent a weapon in combating the church that it soon came to be seated in a position of rigid authority. The first stage was to say that whatever the Bible did not prohibit might be allowed. The second was to say that whatever the Bible did not enjoin must be rejected. And the third was to say that whatever the Bible at any point enjoined must be reinstated. Hence in some quarters the restoration of polygamy and in Puritan England the revival of a rigid Sabbatarianism. The final stage in biblicism was not openly recognized. It consisted in imposing upon the Bible a meaning which would justify current practices actually adopted on nonbiblical grounds. For example, George Fox refused to lift a hat as a mark of deference to persons in authority. His real motive was social equalitarianism, but when challenged for a biblical warrant he replied, "Shadracb, Meshach and Abednego were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace with their coats and their hose and their hats on."

More insidious has been the use of this method by the temperance reformers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to wrest the meaning of Scripture in order to find in it an explicit warrant for their practice. Since several words, used in the Hebrew and in the Greek of the Old and New Testaments, describe drinks of juice, the assumption has been that some referred to fermented and some to unfermented beverages and that wherever a drink was commended or not condemned, it must have been nonalcoholic.

The validity of this contention can be tested only through an examination of the meaning of words, but prior to a philological study one must take into account the ethical presuppositions of Judaism and Christianity which conditioned the meaning of words. Their attitude toward the use of alcoholic beverages is not isolated, but is a part of an entire attitude to life. These religions may be described as life affirming and morally disciplined ' They are to be contrasted with religions which are, on the one hand, orgiastic and, on the other hand, ascetic. Orgiastic religions believe that God is to be discovered primarily within the processes of nature, particularly those of fertility and fermentation. Communion with God is sought by eating the flesh or blood of an animal in which the god supposedly dwells, or through the excitations of sex and intoxication.

The contrast to the orgiastic religion is the ascetic, which regards all things physical as evil and as unfit vehicles for the communication of the divine. The body is defiling, especially the dead body and blood. That which excites the body, such as the sexual act and inebriation, are likewise defiling. Quite commonly religions of this type demand celibacy, vegetarianism and total abstinence. Judaism and Christianity at certain points reveal tendencies in this direction, but the main line of both is not ascetic.

AFFIRMATIVE ATTITUDE

Judaism and Christianity are affirmative in their attitude to life. The Old Testament declares that God made the world and saw that it was good. Ascetic religions regard the world as evil and frequently assign its creation to a malevolent deity. But the Jewish-Christian tradition looks upon the creation as originally good. Corruption of the good ensued. After, not before the creation, came the fall. Because of this corruption in man, not in nature, certain restrictions have to be placed upon the use of nature. Hence life must be disciplined. These two words characterize the Jewish-Christian attitude to life, affirmative and disciplined.

This being so, one would scarcely expect to find total abstinence enjoined as an absolute rule, certainly not on ascetic grounds. We should certainly expect to find drunkenness and all excess condemned. What we do find in fact is the inculcation of moderation.

But the temperance reformers would not have it so. The attempt has been made to give another sense to Scripture. This was done by making distinctions as to the meaning of the words used for beverages in the Old 'Testament and in the New. In each, two words are in primary use-in Hebrew yayin and tirosh, in Greek oinos and gleukos. The contention is that in each language the one word refers to unfermented and the other to fermented juice and that only the unfermented is approved.

A careful study of the context in which these words occur does not bear out the distinction. In Hebrew tirosh is the word alleged to represent unfermented grape juice. The various usages of the word indicate that it does mean the juice of the grape whether in the grape or in the vat. It is the raw product out of which wine is made as bread is made out of flour. Tirosh is commonly translated "new wine." But this is not to say that it was not intoxicating. We have one passage in which very clearly it was so regarded. Hosea says, "Whoredom and yayin and tirosh take away the understanding" (4:11). Here tirosh is distinguished from yayin but both are compared to fornication.

With regard to yayin there is no question that it was intoxicating. Noah drank of the yayin and was drunken (Gen. 9:20-21). The daughters of Lot made their father drunk with yayin (Gen. 19:32-35). Eli said to Hannah, "How long wilt thou be drunken? put away thy yayin from thee" (1 Sam. 1:14).

Such drunkenness was roundly condemned alike in Proverbs and in the prophets (Prov. 20: 1; 23:29-32; Isa. 28:1-7; Joel 1:5; Hab. 2:5).

But if the temperance interpreters were correct, yayin should be universally condemned; but such is not the case. The lover in the Song of Solomon sings to her beloved, "Thy love is better than yayin" (1:2).

The clearest passage is in the 104th Psalm: "He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man; that he may bring forth food out of the earth, and yayin that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread that strengtheneth man's heart" (vs. 14).

And then there is the great passage in the prophet Isaiah: "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy and eat; yea, come, buy yayin and milk without money and without price" (55:1).

As far as the words are concerned, the attempt to distinguish between a fermented wine which is condemned and an unfermented which is approved simply will not hold. The temperance interpreters are driven to say quite arbitrarily that whatever is approved must be unfermented.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXT

The attempt to find a distinction between two kinds of beverage in the New Testament, the one intoxicating and the other unintoxicating, likewise breaks down. The Greek equivalent of the Hebrew tirosh is gleukos. The word is used once in the New Testament and the context certainly indicates that it was intoxicating. The occasion was the preaching with tongues at Pentecost. Some of the bystanders were amazed. Others mocked saying, "They are filled with gleukos" (Acts 2:13). What point was there in the sneer if it meant that these men were talking gibberish because they had had grape juice for breakfast?

The common word for wine in the New Testament is oinos. This is the Hebrew yayin. As in the Old Testament only the abuse and not the use is condemned. Drunkenness is of course reproved. Our Master said, "Take heed to yourselves lest haply your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness..." (Luke 21:34). Again the servant who in his lord's absence began to beat the other servants, to eat and drink and be drunken, was to receive his portion with the unfaithful (Luke 12:45-46, Mt. 24:45-51).

The apostle Paul was shocked that at the love feast one was hungry and another drunken (1 Cor. 11:21). His corrective for this disorder was not an absolute prohibition, but that he who was hungry and presumably by the same token he who was thirsty should first be satisfied at home before coming to the assembly (1 Cor. 11:34). Again he enjoined, "Let us walk becomingly, as in the day; not in reveling and drunkenness..." (Rom. 13:13). The pastoral Epistles require that bishops should not be quarrelsome over wine (1 Tim. 3:3); that elderly women should not be enslaved to too much wine (Titus 2:3), and I Peter condemns winebibbings (4:3).

(An excellent treatment on the historical side of the issue is that of Irving Woodworth Raymond, "The Teaching of the Early Church on the Use of Wine and Strong Drink," Columbia, Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, Number 286, 1927.)

USE OF WINE

But the use of wine is nowhere subject to prohibition whether in precept or in practice. Jesus was contrasted with John the Baptist who had taken a Nazarite vow: "John the Baptist is come eating no bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, he hath a demon. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold, a gluttonous man, and a winebibber,..." (Luke 7:33-34). Surely this reproach would have been without point if Jesus were consuming only grape juice.

The temperance interpreters have maintained that the wine into which water was turned at the wedding feast at Cana must have been unintoxicating. But can one suppose that the guests at an oriental wedding, having already freely imbibed, would have considered the last wine to be the best if it were unfermented?

Finally the wine used at the Lord's Supper must have been fermented unless Jesus was going flatly counter to current Jewish usage. The word wine, by the way, is not used in the accounts of the Lord's Supper. Its presence is inferred from the references to the cup.

The apostle Paul recommended to Timothy that he be no longer a drinker of water, but use a little wine for his stomach's sake (I Tim. 5:23).

The case is so abundantly clear that so lengthy a refutation might well appear superfluous. One notes that the contributors to Kittel's Theologisches Wörterbuch do not so much as consider whether oinos might have been unfermented, nor whether nepho could have meant "totally abstinent" rather than simply "not drunk." The only reason I have discussed the matter at such length is that in this country biblical literalists still persist in their effort to make of the Bible a book enjoining total abstinence. It is argued that since intoxicating wine is a drink of death and Christ is the Lord of life, he simply cannot have turned water into intoxicating wine. There is really no use in discussing the meaning of words in that case. The matter is settled by the presuppositions.

NEED FOR TOTAL ABSTINENCE

Nevertheless a sound case can be made for total abstinence on the basis of biblical principles. These principles have to be applied and reapplied to new sets of circumstances, and what may have been legitimately permissible in one era ceases to be in another. Before considering these principles, we do well to recall the difference between the situation in biblical times and our own.

Drunkenness of course existed in biblical times and was condemned, but it was not so rampant as in our day because we have made such technological advance. First, the discovery of distillation has rendered possible an enormous increase in the alcoholic content of beverages. Secondly an industry has arisen which depends for its existence on an expanding consumption of alcohol. Thirdly, the temptation to excess has been increased by all of the new strains involved in modern living, and finally menace of inebriation is greater in a society where any blunting of extreme alertness may result in serious accidents.

Whereas in antiquity drunkenness was certainly to be condemned as a destroyer of judgment and a breeder of crime, today in the United States alcoholism is one of our major social problems. In 1949 Dr. Jellenik compiled statistics which added up to nearly four million alcoholics in this country, to be exact the number was 3,852,000. Of these 3,276,000 were male and 576,000 were female. The alcoholic is defined as one for whom the craving for alcohol has become a disease and who consumes so much as to be recurrently incapacitated for work. (E. M. Jellenik, Quarterly Journal of Alcoholic Studies, XVIII, June, 1952, pp. 215218.)

Selden Bacon, writing in 1951, considered the above estimates conservative. He reported also on the financial losses to industry in the year 1946. The most moderate estimate was a billion dollars. Other "seriously considered estimates ran to more than ten times that figure" (The Civitan Magazine, March 1951, pp. 1-8).

Surgeons report their heaviest time to be on weekends, because of the higher number of automobile accidents in which alcohol is a very frequent causative factor. Ministers must give an inordinate amount of time to the endeavor to keep married couples together in cases where alcohol makes it almost imperative for them to live apart.

Recent investigations have taught us that alcohol is not a stimulant, but a sedative which relaxes the controls of intelligence and will. The consumption of alcohol may develop into the disease known as alcoholism. Some persons by reason of personality factors, perhaps physical factors, are predisposed to this disease. No one can tell in advance whether he is of this type. He can find out only by getting well on the road toward alcoholism, and then to stop is a frightful struggle.

This is the situation as described by sober investigators. To this situation biblical principles must be brought to bear. The first principle is this: "Know ye not that your bodies are members of Christ?...know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit...?" (1 Cor. 6:15 and 19). Certainly of themselves these tests do not require total abstinence. The question is, what does dishonor the body? Many will hold that a moderate use of alcoholic beverages is no dishonor, but others will reply that although a moderate use under carefully controlled conditions is no dishonor, nevertheless the moderate can lead to the immoderate, and the consequences of immoderate use in our highly mechanized society are so drastic that one is wise to preclude the possibility of excess by refraining from the moderate which may lead to it.

The second great biblical principle is consideration for the weaker brother. The classic passage is in Romans 14:

Let us not therefore judge one another any more. One man hath faith

to eat all things, but he that is weak eateth herbs. Let not him

that eateth set at naught him that eateth not; and let not him that

eateth not judge him that eateth.... Let us not therefore judge one

another any more; but judge ye this rather, that no man put a

stumblingblock in his brother's way.... I know, and am persuaded in

the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean of itself; save that to him

who accounteth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. For if

because of meat thy brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer in

love.... Overthrow not for meat's sake the work of God.... It is

good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby

thy brother stumbleth.

Apparently there were in the early Christian cornmunity those who abstained not simply from meat and wine polluted by having been offered to idols, but from all meat and from all wine. They were vegetarians and aquarians. The apostle regarded them as weak. Nevertheless they were to receive consideration, and the strong should adopt the practice of the weak rather than give offense.

If we translate these precepts into the terms of our situation, we may say that there are some who are capable of drinking in moderation, but others either for physical or psychological reasons are in danger of the Lost Weekend. For the sake of such people, those who can drink without excess should abstain in order to create a social environment in which abstinence is not an act of courage but accepted behavior.

The apostle Paul did not draw this specific inference. He was not legislating. He was enunciating principles. These two principles, that our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit and that the strong should accommodate themselves to the weak, are the biblical grounds on which I base my practice and teaching of total abstinence.

=================================

This article originally appeared as the lead story in the July 7, 1958 issue of Christianity Today. At the time, Roland H. Bainton was Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale Divinity School. Among his published works are Here I Stand, A Life of Martin Luther (1950) and Yale and the Ministry (1957).

*

The Bible says drunkenness is a sin (Gal. 5:21). But is occasional social drinking OK for Christians?

__________________

Although alcohol is by no means a central scriptural issue, the Bible alludes to its use. The problem emerged in Jewish experience after the conquest of Canaan. The land of Canaan flowed not only with milk and honey but with wine as well. The hills of Judea were ideal for vineyards, and so the Hebrews, whose nomadic past had shielded them, had to come to terms with alcohol as a part of ordinary life. In general, they regarded wine as a gift, and they praised God for it (Ps. 104:14-15), but saw excessive drinking as foolish (Prov. 20:1).

It is fair to say that both total abstinence and moderate use were acceptable to Jesus. Following the parable of the children at play (Matt. 11:16-19, NRSV), Jesus added these words: "For John [the Baptist] came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon'; the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'" Clearly, Jesus intended the parable to show what he thought of debates about eating and drinking. They were petty and distracting. They drew attention from the real issues facing the nation.

The apostle Paul warns repeatedly against drunkenness. A candidate for the office of deacon must not be addicted to much wine (1 Tim. 3:8). He admonished members of the church at Corinth not to keep fellowship with a member who is a drunkard (1 Cor. 5:11). But Paul was prepared to accept as brothers and sisters those who drink and those who do not drink. He also spoke favorably of using wine for medicinal purposes (1 Tim. 5:23).

The principle governing his attitude appears at the conclusion of a section in 1 Corinthians where Paul addresses himself to varying attitudes toward eating, drinking, and marriage: "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God" (10:31).

But what about current attitudes and practices? Shall we simply extend the biblical advocacy of moderation to our present times? To the contrary, certain scientific, historical, and cultural conditions make personal and corporate decisions regarding drinking more complicated than in antiquity. Attitudes today must be informed by both contextual and theological considerations.

For one thing, a significant difference between alcoholic drinks of the first century and of today has come with the advent of distilled liquors. In New Testament times the main alcoholic substance was wine (sometimes watered as a substitute for plain drinking water). Today, alcoholic drinks can be much more potent. Very often, such substances are not drunk as a beverage for the sake of taste and refreshment but as a highly concentrated drug taken for "the effect."

Alcohol consumption in North America clearly has reached disastrous proportions. Millions of Americans use alcohol as a drug. It is used by many not to "gladden the heart" (Ps. 104), but to escape reality.

Alcohol is the depressant of choice for millions who find it difficult to cope with life. Increasingly, youth use alcohol as an alternative to illicit drugs. Yet its total effect is possibly more disastrous than that of hard drugs.

Our society has failed to institutionalize drinking in a way that would place it within a healthful setting and define its limits. Many who drink at bars, parties, and even in the home are separated from the positive elements of life. Alcohol has become both a symbol of tragic loneliness and a factor contributing to it.

One's attitudes toward alcohol are seldom objective, even if one tries to be tolerant. One can be sure that a refined, cultured, gentleman from Burgundy is not likely to be an abstainer. And a wife of an alcoholic is not likely to be convinced that any policy of moderation is wise.

Christians who do not commit to a principle of total abstinence should follow a guideline that would represent both discernment and Christian freedom by allowing limited use, now and then, within the context of family, friendship, religious celebration, and diplomatic protocol.

These limits need not imply the strictness of an absolute principle. Still, they should be taken seriously. Such a policy offers the practical advantages of sobriety, the personal advantages of responsible maturity, and the theological advantages of biblical wisdom.

_____________

J. Lawrence Burkholder is president emeritus of Goshen College in Indiana.

*

The surprising drop in teen pregnancy may mean Dan Quayle was right all along.

When conservatives in the past decade have declared that the key to reducing teen pregnancy is teens having less sex, they were mocked by liberals. That’s just old-fogey moralizing, many said. We should accept the ever-rising sexuality activity among teens as inevitable.

This week, the old fogies seem to have pulled out a win. New studies by the federal Centers for Disease Control show that the percentage of American high-school students who have had sexual intercourse declined steadily during the 1990s, and in 2001 fell to the lowest level since 1990. Today, it can be said that the typical American 12th-grade high-school boy or girl has not yet had intercourse. Meanwhile, teen pregnancy is at “the lowest rate ever recorded” in the United States, according to a government study.

Conservatives should certainly take a bow since they helped bring the topic to the foreground in a way that probably helped. But there are plenty of other reasons for the drop in pregnancies among teens. It may be that the movies and music now so relentlessly promote cheap, superficial sex that teens are rebelling against it. If Hollywood and MTV are telling teens to have quick and cheap sex, they sense this means they ought to do the reverse! Or maybe a generation of kids saw that sex and the resultant babies brought nothing approaching happiness to the teens of the 1980s and 1990s.

Here is a fourth possibility: that teens are not so different than the rest of us. Virtue generally is on the rise in the United States. Teens may be simply participating in an overall national revival of personal standards.

Setting aside the recent corporate lying scandal as confined to those who make northward of $1 million a year, it can be argued that nearly all trends related to personal virtue today are positive. Commentators may bemoan society's lack of moral standards or that Americans no longer fear their God. Statistics say otherwise.

Consider: The use of most illegal drugs has been declining for two decades. Alcohol consumption per capita has been declining for a generation, including among the young. Boozing in the United States is down so much that among Western nations, American is close to the bottom for drinking.

Cigarette use continues to decline, especially by the all-important barometer of youth use, since smoking habits are often set in the teen years. Just 10 percent of American 10th graders smoke today, believed to be the lowest number for this age group since packaged cigarettes became common in the 1920s.

The divorce rate, which had been climbing seemingly inexorably since the 1950s, flattened out in the '90s and at present is in shallow decline. When you attend a wedding, in the United States at least, there is no longer a 50/50 chance you are watching people swear vows that will not last.*

The rate of children born outside marriage, which climbed seemingly inexorably since the 1950s and peaked in 1994 at 32 percent, has also flattened out, and is in shallow decline.

According to the Bureau of the Census, the segment of children who lived with both parents rose from 51 percent to 56 percent. The increase held for African American children as well, 39 percent living with both parents at the end of the 1990s, versus 35 percent at the beginning.**

Is increased abortion the reason teen births are decline? No, because incidence of teen abortions went down 39 percent from 1995 to 2000, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a birth-control advocacy group. Total abortions in the United States have been declining steadily for most of the last decade, falling in 2000 to the lowest level since the year 1978, though the population rose during the period. Setting aside whether abortion is morally right or wrong, that abortion demand is declining on its own, through people's voluntary choices about birth control, sex and childbearing, is surely another sign of rising personal virtue.

Violent crime, the worst failing of virtue, is also in spectacular decline. Rates of murder, rape and assault have been falling steadily for a decade or more. During the 1990s, homicides fell by 75 percent in San Diego, 70 percent in New York City, by big margins in Baltimore, Boston, Los Angeles and other cities. Domestic violence, robbery and burglary and car theft all declined. Rape declined by 40 percent in the 1990s, as extensive efforts were being made to encourage the reporting of rape. Even considering a few horrifying events such as Columbine, youth violence declined sharply in the 1990s, with the “crime offending rate” for teenagers falling an amazing two-thirds. Gun use by the young, particularly, declined in the 1990s: a big drop in youth-on-youth shootings caused the overall occurrence of adolescent death to decline to the lowest rate ever.

This virtue boom has already produced rewards, and will likely produce more. Fewer births to teens is a factor in the crime decline, as boys born to unwed teen mothers are far more likely to commit crimes in later life than boys born to married mothers over the age of 20, a rule that applies to all races. Since having a child before age 20 is closely associated with ending up impoverished, the decline in teen sex will benefit thousands of young women. (Statistics show that in order to avoid becoming poor in the United States, you must do three things: graduate from high school, marry after the age of 20 and marry before having your first child. Only eight percent of those who do these three things become poor as adults, whereas 79 percent of poor adults have failed to do these three things.)

Not long ago divorce, teen pregnancy, crime and other problems were decried as runaway phenomena that could never be reversed, brought about by an irresponsible anything-goes culture. Now these supposedly unstoppable trends have flip-flopped in positive directions, amidst guarded optimism that American culture is increasingly concerned with higher standards. This proves that advocating virtue is not a waste of time -- it can work.

________

Adapted from The Progress Paradox: How Life Gets Better and People Feel Worse

*Of course some marriages do not work and of course some women need to escape from abusive husbands, but a significant body of academic research shows that being married usually leads to better physical and psychological health for both spouses. In most cases staying married improves the standard of living in both; and in nearly all cases, parents staying married is good for children.

**A woman can raise a child without a husband, and two committed people can be good parents outside the institution of marriage. But statistics dictate that on average, children born to married parents live longer, advance farther in school, earn more as adults and are less likely to have emotional problems or commit crimes. This marriage-is-good-for-kids formula is just as true for white children and middle-class children as it is for children of minorities and the poor. Kids on average simply do better when raised by two parents; dreamy sixties-era claims to the contrary just have not held up under the scrutiny of sociological studies.

I was barely six years old when I first began to notice the beverages that my parents drank. Most of the time, they would share them with me if I asked, but there was this one brownish liquid that my dad drank, that no matter how hard I begged, he wouldn't let me try. He called it “Alcohol”. I didn't understand. Why was this stuff “off-limits” for me, when his juice and soda were readily shared? He explained that it was because I was “too young”, but the more I thought about it, the more it didn't make any sense. Why was I too young for this, and not for the other drinks? If it was as good as my dad seemed to think it was, why shouldn't it be enjoyed by everyone? Especially a six-year-old?

The more I thought about it, the more I determined I became to try some of this forbidden liquid. I bided my time until one evening my parents went to a movie, leaving my older brother and I in the care of our grandmother. I was playing in the kitchen, and naturally, my eyes were attracted to the cupboard over the sink where my dad kept the different flasks of that brownish liquid. “I wonder what it tastes like,” I whispered. I looked around quickly to see who might be watching me, but I was in luck. My grandmother was busy watching T.V. and my older brother was reading in the other room. There was absolutely no one there to stop me!

I carefully crawled up onto the kitchen counter, and with one last guilty look over my shoulder, I made my way to the cupboard. Grabbing the first bottle I could reach, I screwed off the top and smelled it. Yuck! It burned my nostrils!

Maybe my nose should have stopped me, but it didn't. If my dad enjoyed it as much as he did, surely the taste must be better than the smell! But when I swallowed that first mouthful, I thought I was going to die. It burned my throat, it made my eyes water, and it was all I could do to pant in breath. How could anyone drink this stuff and act like they were enjoying it!

I began to feel a bit dizzy. I didn't know why, but in case it was the brown liquid, I closed the bottle, put it exactly where I had found it and crawled back to the floor.

Now what?

I decided to go into the living room where my grandma was watching T.V., and to my amazement, she was watching a documentary on the dangers of alcohol! I was too young to fully comprehend what was being said, but I remember how shocked I felt about the possible disastrous consequences caused by that brownish liquid. Right then and there, I decided to never touch the stuff again.

I only broke my resolve once. When I was 12, we were in a car accident and to “get over the shock,” my parents forced me to drink a small glass of Brandy. But the taste hadn't improved in six years and being reminded of my early decision, I recommitted myself to a life of abstinence, and though the peer pressure and social obligations of my teen and early adult years often made it difficult, I was never again swayed.

It was years later that I learned that I came from several generations of alcoholics on both sides of my family. My decision, made at six years of age, was perhaps what helped me to escape the fangs of this monster that continues to hold held the rest of my family in its nasty grasp.

________

Source: Illustrator, http://www.answers2prayer.org

*

I readily confess to a personal bias when it comes to the issue of alcohol.

My wife Charlotte grew up in the Georgia Baptist Children’s Home because her parents were alcoholics. Her father died a lost alcoholic. Her mother, by God’s grace, was saved on her deathbed; the twin killers of alcohol and tobacco had ravaged her body. Today, Charlotte’s sister and brother are lost alcoholics and so are most of the rest of her family.

My sister Joy and her husband Kevin King adopted a daughter born with fetal alcohol syndrome. She began life with this strike against her through no fault of her own.

• There are more than 40 million problem drinkers in America.

• Alcohol is the number one drug problem among teenagers.

• One in three American families suspects that one or more family members have a drinking problem.

• Misuse of alcohol costs our nation $100 billion a year in quantifiable cost.

Because of these experiences and many more, I often have said that even if I were not a Christian I would have nothing to do with alcohol. There is simply too much sorrow and heartache connected to it. Avoiding this devastating drug is simply the wise thing to do.

This year at our convention we again passed a resolution calling for abstinence from alcohol. The resolution passed overwhelmingly, but it did generate significant debate both during and after the annual meeting. Some have accused those supporting the resolution of being pharisaical and legalistic, traditionalist and anti-biblical, that we fail to understand Christian liberty and freedom, and that we even stand against Jesus.

These are strong accusations from fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. However, are they correct? Are those like myself who believe abstinence to be the best lifestyle choice actually guilty of these charges?

Let me respond as graciously and kindly as I possibly can, explaining why I hold the position I do. I share my heart with no malice or ill will toward anyone, but from a desire to honor the Lord Jesus, and to protect others from the evils alcohol has visited on so many.

We should remember from a Baptist perspective that there are historical precedents for affirming abstinence.

In 1886, Southern Baptists issued their first resolution on alcohol. Since then, at least 61 additional corporate statements have addressed the risk of alcohol and the wisdom of abstinence. For 120 years, Southern Baptists have made clear their stand on this issue.

Individual Baptists no doubt continue to drink as some had before 1886, but the Southern Baptist Convention as a consensus whole has been crystal clear on where it stands for a long time. I am confident that our forefathers understood the issue of Christian liberty as they passed these resolutions. I am grateful for this tradition. I believe we should continue it.

There are moral reasons for affirming abstinence. John Piper teaches the wisdom of abstinence because alcohol can be a mind-altering drug, and it can be addictive; it does not help one in doing the will of God and can genuinely be a hindrance. He points to “the carnage of alcohol abuse” to support his choice to boycott such a product. He also reasons, “Is it really so prudish, or narrow to renounce a highway killer, a home destroyer, and a business wrecker?”

Some questions are in order and deserve an answer. Does alcohol make me a better person? Does alcohol draw me closer to God? Does alcohol help me run the race faithfully to the end (Heb. 12:1-2)?

Some respond by saying the issue is not abstinence but moderation, arguing that the equivalent would be to abstain from eating and from marital sex to eliminate, respectively, gluttony and sexual abuse. There is however a significant difference. We must eat to live. We must engage in sex to procreate. Alcohol is not a necessity for life or good living.

I am in total agreement with my spiritual hero Adrian Rogers who said, “Moderation is not the cure for the liquor problem. Moderation is the cause of the liquor problem. Becoming an alcoholic does not begin with the last drink, it always begins with the first. Just leave it alone.”

My friend James Merritt wisely says, “It is impossible to be bitten by a snake that you never play with.”

Alcoholism cannot strike unless given the opportunity. That potential becomes real with the first drink one takes.

There are biblical reasons for practicing abstinence:

• It is consistent with the principle of edification (1 Cor. 6:12). Alcohol does not build you up or make you better for Jesus. Avoiding it ensures you will not harm yourself with it.

• It is consistent with the principle of refusing that which enslaves (1 Cor. 6:12). Alcohol is a drug that can impair the senses and has a potential addictive element. Like addictive pornography, it should be avoided at all cost.

• It is consistent with the ethic of love for believers and unbelievers alike (1 Cor. 8:13; 9:19-22; 10:32-33). Because I am an example to others, I will make certain no one ever walks the road of sorrow called alcoholism because they saw me take a drink and assumed, “if it is alright for Danny Akin, it is alright for me.” No, I will choose to set an uncompromising example of abstinence because I love them.

• I will seek my joy and filling in the Spirit not in alcohol. I love the Phillips translation of Ephesians 5:18 which reads, “Don’t get your stimulus from wine (for there is always the danger of excessive drinking), but let the Spirit stimulate your souls.” Psalm 4:7-8 adds, “You [O Lord] have put more joy in my heart than they have when their grain and wine abound. In peace I will both lie down and sleep; for you alone, O Lord, make me dwell in safety.”

• It is true Jesus drank wine. However, there is no evidence that he ever partook of “strong drink.” As Bob Stein has carefully documented, “The term “wine” or oinos in the ancient world, then, did not mean wine as we understand it today but wine mixed with water. To consume the amount of alcohol that is in two martinis by drinking wine containing three parts water to one part wine [a common ancient ratio], one would have to drink over twenty-two glasses. In other words, it is possible to become intoxicated from wine mixed with three parts water, but one’s drinking would probably affect the bladder long before it affected the mind.” It is important to note also that children would have drunk this diluted mixture of water and wine. It seems clear that there is no one-to-one correspondence with first century wine and twenty first century distilled liquor. Concerning the latter, I believe the Lord Jesus would have no part.

Let me conclude with some practical considerations:

• Should those who practice abstinence look down on those who do not? The answer is an unqualified no. That is pride and therefore is sin. It is true that alcohol has contributed to many going to hell, but pride, no doubt, has done so in even greater numbers. A smug, prideful abstainer without Jesus is just as lost as the poor drunkard who is always in search of another drink. Those who believe in abstinence should be gracious and humble, kind and caring, loving and patient.

• As a pastor or church leader, would I demand abstinence for church membership? No, I would not. Would I demand it for leadership? Absolutely! The principle of Proverbs 31:4-5 is appropriately applied here, “It is not for Kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine, or for rulers to take strong drink, lest they drink and forget what has been decreed and pervert the rights of all the afflicted.”

• I agree with John MacArthur. Can I say it is always a sin to take a drink? No. Can I say it is almost always ill-advised? Yes, because it violates the biblical principles of wisdom and witness.

One of America’s leading pastors is Andy Stanley. He wrote a book titled, THE BEST QUESTION EVER. That question is this, “What is the wise thing for me to do?”

I challenge anyone to show me the superior wisdom of drinking “in moderation,” as opposed to not drinking at all. This is not legalism but love. This is not being anti-biblical but pro-brother and sister. This is not working for evil but for good. Given the world in which we live, I believe such a lifestyle honors the Lord Jesus. I believe it pleases Him. Without question, it is the wise thing to do.

Teaching students to save sex for marriage should be outlawed in public schools because it violates the constitutionally required separation of church and state, say two legal scholars. Gary Simson and Erika Sussman from Cornell University argue in an article in “The Southern California Review of Law and Women’s Studies” that abstinence-based lessons should be scrapped, reported FOX News.

The writers contend that “even if the court finds that [religion] is not the only purpose, that adopting a program of this sort has the effect of communicating government support of religion,” Simson told the network. Abstinence programs were “bankrupt” because they did not help students who were sexually active, he said. Lessons should also cover birth control and other sexuality issues.

John Giles, president of the Christian Coalition in Alabama, said that the pair’s argument had far-reaching implications. “You can probably dissect every good trait taught by a schoolteacher and say they’ve stepped over a line and used public funds to do it.” He added: “Where do you draw the line on teaching positive attributes? Kids are going to be exposed to the world of sex on every front. What we need to be in the business of is teaching standards.”

A majority of Southern Baptist senior pastors and laity believe Christians should not drink alcohol and that using it could cause other believers “to stumble,” according to a new poll by LifeWay Research.

The survey asked Southern Baptist and non-Southern Baptist pastors and laity a series of seven questions about alcohol, ranging from their views on whether getting drunk is against Scripture to whether drinking alcohol is an example of Christian liberty.

Among Southern Baptists, 77 percent of senior pastors and 59 percent of laity believe “Christians should not use alcohol as a beverage.” Those percentages fall, though, when Southern Baptists are asked whether “Scripture indicates that people should never drink” alcohol. Forty-one percent of SBC pastors agreed with that statement, while 34 percent of Southern Baptist laity did.

Those percentages are higher than they are among non-Southern Baptist Protestants. For example, 45 percent of non-Southern Baptist pastors and 45 percent of non-Southern Baptist laity believe Christians should not use alcohol as a beverage.

Southern Baptists also are likely to believe that when “a Christian partakes of alcohol in a social setting, it is a liberty that could cause other believers to stumble or be confused.” Ninety-eight percent of Southern Baptist pastors and 71 percent of Southern Baptist laity agreed with that statement, compared to 89 percent of non-Southern Baptist pastors and 61 percent of non-SBC laity.

Additionally, Southern Baptists believe that avoiding alcohol can attract unbelievers. Seventy-five percent of Southern Baptist pastors and 58 percent of SBC laity agreed that “when a Christian does not drink alcohol, this makes non-believers who see this more interested in Jesus Christ.”

Among the poll’s other findings:

• 3 percent of Southern Baptist pastors drink alcohol while 29 percent of Southern Baptist laity do so. By comparison, 25 percent of non-Southern Baptist pastors drink, as do 42 percent of non-Southern Baptist laity. The poll simply asked, “Do you personally drink alcohol?”

• 100 percent of Southern Baptist pastors and 85 percent of laity believe “Scripture indicates that people should never get drunk.”

• 52 percent of Southern Baptist pastors (20 percent strongly agreeing and 32 percent somewhat agreeing) believe “Scripture indicates that all beverages, including alcohol, can be consumed without sin.” Among SBC laity, 58 percent agree (35 percent strongly and 23 percent somewhat agreeing).

• 47 percent of Southern Baptist pastors and 53 percent of SBC laity agree that “when a Christian partakes of alcohol in reasonable amounts, they are simply exercising a biblical liberty.” Among those same pastors, 15 percent strongly agreed and 32 percent somewhat agreed. Among SBC laity, 28 percent strongly agreed and 25 percent somewhat agreed.

Released in late September 2007, the study polled 1,005 Protestant senior pastors and 1,004 Protestant laity by phone in April and May. To be included among the laity, a person had to attend church at least five times a year and have a religious preference of “Protestant.” Included in those samples were 405 Southern Baptist senior pastors and 205 Southern Baptist laity.

In a separate study, recent master’s-level graduates of Southern Baptist seminaries and the Canadian Baptist Seminary were asked whether they believed that “Christians should not use alcohol as a beverage.” Among all graduates who participated, 69 percent agreed (41 percent agreeing strongly and 28 percent agreeing somewhat). Among graduates employed within the SBC, 75 percent agreed (46 percent agreeing strongly and 29 percent agreeing somewhat). As mentioned before, 77 percent of SBC senior pastors agreed (60 percent agreeing strongly and 17 percent somewhat).

The study of seminary graduates invited all 1998-2004 master’s-level graduates from Golden Gate, New Orleans, Midwestern, Southeastern and Southwestern Baptist Theological seminaries, as well as the Canadian Southern Baptist Seminary. A “limited subset” of Southern Seminary graduates were available for the study, according to data on the LifeWay Research website.

In Touchstone magazine, Patrick Fagan writes that the culture of the traditional family, based on life-long monogamy, is competing with another culture — one that is polyamorous in nature. “In the culture of monogamy,” he writes, “men are anchored in their families and tied to their children and wives, through the free and deliberate focus of their sexuality.”

By contrast, the culture of polyamory treasures sexual license. In fact, Fagan writes, any attempt to constrain sex “would be the antithesis of the main project of the culture of polyamory” — sexual relations when you want, with whomever you want.

That’s why the culture of polyamory attempts to control childhood education, sex education, and adolescent health programs. This control, Fagan warns, “enables the polyamory culture to reach into the traditional monogamy culture and gradually dismantle it.”

________

Adapted from a BreakPoint message

Did you hear the story about a cowboy walked into a Texas bar, ordered three bottles of beer, and sat down. He took a sip out of each bottle in turn, and when he finished them, he came back to the bar and ordered three more.

The bartender told the cowboy, “Beer goes flat after it’s opened, so it would taste better if you drank one at a time.”

The cowboy replied, “Well, you see, I have two brothers. One is in Australia, the other is in Dublin, and I’m here in Texas. When we all left home, we promised we’d drink this way to remember the days we drank together. So I have one for each of my brothers and one for myself.”

The bartender admitted this was a nice custom and left it there. The cowboy became a regular in the bar and always drank the same way.

Then one day he only ordered two bottles. All the regulars took notice and fell silent. When the cowboy came back to the bar for his second round, the bartender said, “I don’t want to intrude on your grief, but I wanted to offer my condolences on your loss.”

The cowboy looked puzzled for a moment, then a light dawned and he laughed and explained, “Oh, nobody died, my brothers are just fine. It’s just that my wife and I joined the local Baptist Church, and I had to quit drinking.” Then he paused and continued, “But it hasn’t affected my brothers.”

________

Ed Rowell, Preaching Today

In Touchstone magazine, Patrick Fagan writes that the culture of the traditional family, based on life-long monogamy, is competing with another culture — one that is polyamorous in nature. “In the culture of monogamy,” he writes, “men are anchored in their families and tied to their children and wives, through the free and deliberate focus of their sexuality.”

By contrast, the culture of polyamory treasures sexual license. In fact, Fagan writes, any attempt to constrain sex “would be the antithesis of the main project of the culture of polyamory” — sexual relations when you want, with whomever you want.

That’s why the culture of polyamory attempts to control childhood education, sex education, and adolescent health programs. This control, Fagan warns, “enables the polyamory culture to reach into the traditional monogamy culture and gradually dismantle it.”

________

Adapted from a BreakPoint message

"Always rise from the table with an appetite, and you will never sit down without one.”

--William Penn

“Once during Prohibition I was forced to live for days on nothing but food and water.”

--W. C. Fields

“Abstaining is favorable both to the head and the pocket.”

--Horace Greeley

“Complete abstinence is easier than perfect moderation.”

--Saint Augustine

“All philosophy lies in two words, sustain and abstain.”

--Epictetus

“The only way for a rich man to be healthy is by exercise and abstinence, to live as if he were poor.”

--William Temple

"Do not look where you fell, but where you slipped."

-- African proverb, Bits & Pieces (B&P) 4/23/03

“Unless there is within us that which is above us, we shall soon yield to that which is about us.”

-- P. T. Forsyth, SermonCentral.com newsletter 2/16/04

"The Devil is easy to identify. He appears when you're terribly tired and makes a very reasonable request which you know you shouldn't grant."

-- Fiorello La Guardia, Mayor of New York, Dynamic Preaching 3/8/04