100 Sermon Illustrations on Alcohol

In 1869 a Methodist dentist, Dr. Thomas Welch, objected to his church's use of fermented wine in the communion service at his church in Vineland, New Jersey, where he was the communion steward. Experimenting at night in his kitchen he came up with a nonalcoholic grape beverage, which he named “Dr. Welch's Unfermented Wine”. He approached church officials to persuade them to substitute his beverage for the traditional wine. The elders regarded his suggestion as being an unacceptable innovation.

A son, Charles, who was also a dentist, changed the name to Welch's Grape Juice. He set up a production facility in a barn behind the family home. Response was so overwhelming that he gave up dentistry and devoted full time to making and distributing grape juice.

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

http://www.inareaumc.org/2004/july-august-04/thomas_and_charles_welch_and_the.htm

"Changing wine into grape juice" by Daniel Benedict

Most United Methodists are aware that one of our practices is the use of unfermented juice of the grape for Holy Communion. While some other Protestant bodies share this practice, the possibility of the practice goes back to the late 19th century and a Methodist dentist named Thomas Bramwell Welch.

Apparently Welch had scruples about the use of wine and had heard of Louis Pasteur's process of pasteurization of milk. Welch was successful in applying the process to grape juice, and he began to use it in his church, where he was a Communion steward.

His son, Charles Welch, was an enterprising Methodist layman (a dentist, like his father) from southern New Jersey. He marketed the pasteurized grape juice to temperance-minded evangelical Protestants as authentic biblical “wine.” As word spread and as the temperance movement grew among evangelical Protestant churches, Welch left dentistry and produced Welch's Grape Juice commercially.

The impact of the temperance movement and the availability of the “unfermented juice of the grape” can be traced in The United Methodist Book of Discipline and actions of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Church of the United Brethren.

*

My Source: WORDS OF LIFE Vol 4, #43, October 25, 1998

Waynesboro, TN

Author: Dewayne Staggs

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

THE CHRISTIAN, DRUGS, AND ALCOHOL

Drugs and alcohol are addictive and bring people into “bondage” or under their control. Drugs are condemned under the “works of the flesh” (Galatians 5:19-21). The word “witchcraft” (KJV) or “sorcery” (ASV) is from “pharmakeia” meaning “the use or administering drugs.” In the ancient world, drugs were closely connected with sorcery, witchcraft, and magical arts.

Drugs can be divided into five categories: (1) NARCOTICS which refer to opium and drugs derived from it as well as synthetic drugs that relieve pain; (2) SEDATIVES; and (3) TRANQUILIZERS which are used to reduce epilepsy, anxiety and various mental disorders; (4) STIMULANTS or AMPHETAMINES which are used to stimulate the central nervous system in order to relieve fatigue, curb appetites, and etc.; (5) HALLUCINOGENS such as marijauna and L.S.D. (lysergic acid diethylamide).

The effects of addiction to drugs is seen in: (1) the damage of the body cells and nervous system causing reduced resistance to some diseases; (2) occasional irreversible brain damage; (3) respiratory diseases; (4) the deterioration of the mental functions reducing the ability to concentrate and be coherent; (5) the damage to the reproductive system of both males and females which often appear in their children.

Some reasons for addiction to drugs, and these vary within the individual, are: (1) peer pressure in both adults and youth who are too weak to resist the sinful influences of others; (2) rebellion against authority; (3) unhappy situations; (4) the example set by parents who are dependent on various drugs; (5) an attempt to escape the reality of life because they have failed to cope; (6) the complexity and values of society which encourages momentary leasure -- “LIVE IT UP” and “IF IT FEELS GOOD DO IT;” (7) the attempt to escape physical discomfort or pain.

The New Testament condemns the use of alcohol (Romans 1:13; 1 Corinthians 5:11; 6:9-10; Galatians 5:21; Ephesians 5:18) and shows that its use is always dangerous. It results in irresponsible behavior: (1) PHYSICALLY it affects man’s walk (Psalm 107:27); reddens the eyes and ages man (Proverbs 23:29-30); makes one ill (Isaiah 19:14; Isaiah 28:8); and can result in death (Proverbs 23:32); (2) MENTALLY it affects ones thinking (Psalm 23:29-30); Judgment (Isaiah 28:7); causes one to be contentious (Proverbs 23:29); (3) ECONOMICALLY, it destroys one’s prosperity (Proverbs 21:17; Proverbs 23:21); (4) SPIRITUALLY, it causes sin and shame (Genesis 9:20-29; 19:30-38); causes others to sin (2 Samuel 11:13); and results in despising the word of God (Isaiah 5:22-23). In short, it damns body, mind, and soul.

Drug and alcohol abuse is a serious problem in society and affects all -- rich and poor; young-old; educated and uneducated; and the Christian and non-Christian. While genuine concern and love must be shown to those involved, they must understand that their involvement in this problem is sinful and their responsibility is to live soberly, righteously, and godly (Titus 2:11).

Galatians 5:1 teaches the Christian is free in Christ and once having left the bondage of sin, he is not to be “entangled again,” but to “Stand fast.” Prohibited is our involvement in these sins, and others, and the insistence of our living responsibly. These are just some of the reasons for my involvement in drug and alcohol counseling at the Bootcamp and at CCA. However these lessons are to be taught whether in prison or in Church.

When following God’s plan for our life in Christ we will live holy lives (Romans 12:1), glorify God in our bodies (1 Corinthians 6:19-20), and discipline our bodies (1 Corinthians 9:25-27). We are the happiest and our lives are the fullest when we serve Him through love. Regardless, (in prison or out) the many reasons for the way of life in Christ will give us the strength to cope with and handle our anxieties as well as live our lives in the strength and power of Christ (John 14:6; Philippians 4:13).

Brethren we continue to ask you to remember the work as well as the brethren that are in prison in your prayers.

Years ago; when I was a junior in the theological seminary at Princeton, the venerable Dr. William Paxton was just closing his career as a professor. He told us one day of an incident which I have never forgotten:

On Sabbath evenings in his Pittsburgh church he had noted a young man of fine appearance sitting in one of the galleries and giving careful and reverent attention to the preacher. Shortly before a Communion season this man called at Dr. Paxton’s home and said he wished to make a confession of his faith and unite with the Church. After the conversation was over and the arrangement had been made, just as the man was leaving, Dr. Paxton asked, not out of curiosity, but as a matter of courtesy, what his business was. He was surprised when the man told him that he was a liquor dealer, and gave the name of one of the best-known liquor firms in Pittsburgh. Dr. Paxton asked him to sit down again, and expressed his sorrow that such was the case, explaining to him that with the convictions he held he could not conscientiously receive him into the member ship of the Church. But he told him that there was then no church law on the subject, that it was his own personal judgment in the matter, and that there were other ministers, whose opinions he did not judge, who took a different view of the matter.

The young man replied heatedly that he considered the minister’s attitude a personal affront. His father and his grandfather before him had been in the liquor business, and he had always regarded it as an honorable calling. With an air that told plainly that he was through with churches and ministers, he took his hat and walked out.

Dr. Paxton never expected to see the man again. He was therefore much surprised when one morning several months afterward the same man came to his study and said, “Dr. Paxton, when you refused to receive me as a member of your church I felt angry and outraged, and resolved in my heart to have nothing more to do with churches. But when I was leaving you told me that it would be a good thing if I would see what my business was doing in the city. The other day I took your advice. I followed one of our wagons about over the city. I watched it as it went into the private home, the mansion of the rich, the hovel and the tenement of the poor, the rich man’s club, the dance hall, and places of amusement and of crime. Now I know what you meant. You were right and I was wrong. I honor and respect you, sir, for refusing to receive me into the membership of your church. But now that I have seen the evils of this business, I have given it up and, confessing my sins, I desire to be received into the Church.”

My Source:

HURST STREET HERALD

Center, TX

Volume XX, #35

Author: Roy McNew

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

THE INTOXICATED CAT

by Roy McNew

A letter in the newspaper was written by an unhappy woman who complained that her husband thought it funny to make her pet cat drunk by pouring gin into its milk. The distressed woman complained that the cat would dance like mad, stagger around in circles, and finally fall in a heap in the corner, and go to sleep. Besides, the cat was losing all of its hair as a result of this "diet," and what would a cat look like without any hair?

Immediately, letters poured in to the newspaper from aroused readers all over the country denouncing the husband and suggesting various degrees of punishment for a man who would be so cruel to animals. Perhaps I have a warped sense of humor, but the reaction of the readers struck me as ironically funny. Give an animal liquor and you are cruel! Give a man liquor and you are "the life of the party." Let the animal reel, act foolish, fall in a drunken stupor and immediately readers from coast to coast howl in protest. Let a man reel, act foolish, crash into an innocent family, and fall in a drunken stupor, and we simply ignore it. You can't cause an animal's hair to fall out without protest, but you cause a man's liver to rot out and nobody says anything.

We shouldn't give liquor to a pet. It is inhumane. But, we shouldn't allow it to be given to our sons and daughters, business associates and friends, either. Yet, with all the advertising media at our command, we continually urge them to drink it. If it is NOT fit for a dog or cat, it is certainly not fit for humans!

It Would Be Weird Without Beer

A recent series of television commercials for a beer company attempts to portray in a humorous fashion what the world would be like without beer A group of men are shown sitting around on a boat after a long, hard day of fishing. They reach into a cooler full of ice, but instead of cold cans of beer they pull out ears of corn and pass them around. They lift up their ears of corn and toast to each other As the obviously bizarre scene fades out the commercial ends with these words on the screen: "It would be weird without beer." Another ad shows a man, at a moment when we might expect him to offer a beer to his prospective son-in-law; tossing him a fish instead, once more making the point that "it would be weird without beer"

On one level, the commercials are funny. (Why is it that many of the funniest commercials on TV are for beer?) They do a good job of leaving the impression that there are just certain moments when nothing would seem appropriate in place of drinking a beer. On the other level, however, they are not amusing at all.

The slogan is tragically ironic. Indeed it would be weird without beer; but in the opposite sense intended by the advertiser

It would be weird without women with black eyes, bruised faces and broken arms from their drunken hus bands. It would be weird without children in need of food and clothing because of fathers who cannot keep themselves from stopping at the corner bar on payday and blowing their whole paychecks. It would be weird without marriages destroyed by addiction to alcohol. It would be weird without police officers so busy on Friday and Saturday nights arresting people who assault others while under the influence of alcohol. It would be weird without funerals where parents wail in agony as they bury the lifeless bodies of their precious children killed by another drunk driver It would be weird to have a world without all the widows, orphans, and neglected children, without all the destruction and desperation, without all the misery and ruin caused by the use of alcoholic beverages like beer.

Yes, it's true. It would be weird without beer.

--Tyler Young,taken from Seibles Road Bulletin, 17 May 1998.

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

| My Source:

| THE PADUCAH SUN, April 16, 1999, page 1B

|------------------------------

| Author: Tim Whitmire

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

WATTS TELLS OF PAINFUL COSTS

by Tim Whitmire

AP

RUSSEL SPRINGS, KY-- The scarred arm with which Jason Watts brushes his teeth each morning he wakes up in jail is a daily reminder to the former Kentucky football player of the drunken driving accident that killed two friends, including a teammate.

"My life has been ruined because of the choice I made ... to drink and drive." Watts told students at Russell County High School on Thursday. "Now, because of my choice, I'm looking at 10 years in jail. That's not a very bright future."

The speech was Watts' first in Kentucky since the crash last Nov. 15 which killed Eastern Kentucky student Christopher Scott Brock, 21, and Kentucky football transfer Arthur Steinmetz, 19.

He currently is incarcerated at the Pulaski County Detention Center, where he chose to begin serving time after pleading guilty last month to two counts of reckless homicide. Watts, who turns 22 next week, is scheduled for sentencing Tuesday and could receive up to 10 years in prison.

Watts agreed to appear at the school assembly, which was staged by the state's Drive Smart program, after a representative of Mothers Against Drunk Driving had to cancel earlier this week, said Drive Smart coordinator Pat Melton. Eddy Montgomery, the commonwealth's attorney for Pulaski County agreed to let Watts out of jail to make the appearance.

Watts' 40-minute speech recounted the events of last Nov. 14 and 15 and largely echoed a talk he gave at a Seventh Day Adventist college in Tennessee in March, prior to entering his guilty plea.

"Every night I go to bed, I picture my buddies," he said. "You picture them broken up and bloody. Let me tell you, that's the most horrifying thing you can go through."

Watts, a senior and the Wildcats' starting center, and his passengers had been out all night drinking and celebrating in the aftermath of Kentucky's Nov. 14 win over Vanderbilt when they set out early on the 15th to go deer hunting near Somerset.

Driving on two-lane U.S. 27 north of Somerset, Watts had just passed another driver when he lost control of his truck and flipped it, killing Brock and Steinmetz. Watts suffered only a laceration to his arm.

Watts described the many injuries he had suffered playing football--broken ribs, torn ligaments, and the like--and told the students, "I've done it all, but you can never imagine the pain that I felt ... when I opened my eyes" and realized that he had survived and his friends would not.

"You all can imagine looking to your left and to your right, those people--your best friends--being dead. That's how it felt," he said.

Being in jail has only made Watts more conscious of his mistake, he said.

"Jail ain't no joke," he said. "You'd be amazed, once you lose that freedom, you'd kill for that."

He described working 40 hours a week in the detention center kitchen, work for which he is paid $1.25 a day.

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

________________________ end of article _______________________

DRL NOTE: Brethren, we are into that season when we begin to see all those ads on TV for formalwear worn by those beautiful young models. It's time for the Prom. Unfortunately, besides the sinfulness of dancing, the immodesty of the garments, etc., the Prom brings along with it very similar scenes of destruction among young people that you have just read about above. There is no doubt that lives will be lost--wasted during the Prom Season of 1999. Alcohol is a "soul-mate" of the Prom. When my daughter was attending Marshall County High School, at about this time of the year, there would be a prominent display of a HORRIBLY CRASHED automobile at the corner where students would pass to get to the parking lots with an appropriate sign to REMIND the young people of the dangers of mixing drinking and driving. I always appreciated that visual aid, but also wondered why the school would sponsor an event which would call for the hauling of such a VISUAL to the school property. Would you please consider taking the time to tell some Junior or Senior in High School about our website on dancing. The site contains several approaches to inform and perhaps even scare away young people from attending the Prom.

Should Christians drink socially?

Everywhere he goes, Ted Stone asks his audience that question. Each time, he offers the same answer -- no.

Stone, an author and speaker on alcohol and drug abuse, visited Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., Oct. 3 as part of a tour of all six Southern Baptist seminaries. He and his associate, Philip Barber, are speaking at the seminaries to help prepare students for ministry among those with alcohol and drug problems. Both men are former drug addicts.

During his stop at Southern Seminary, Stone noted that much of the energy in the anti-drug movement is focused on such substances as marijuana and crack cocaine. But Stone pointed out that Americans -- and Christians in particular -- often shy away from speaking against the dangers of the nation's No. 1-used drug -- alcohol.

Much like he does everywhere he speaks, Stone asked those in attendance to avoid social drinking.

"We ask individuals to prayerfully consider giving it up totally -- to totally abstain -- for the sake of somebody they love," he said, "because somebody somewhere trusts in each of us. If one person sees one of us drink a social beer and assumes it's safe because we think it's safe, and then they develop a problem that destroys that individual's life, the guilt will rest partially on our shoulders. I don't want that guilt on my shoulders, and I certainly don't want anybody to go astray or stumble on account of me."

Stone said social drinkers often fail to see the implications of their actions. He used himself as an example. During his life as an addict, Stone said he would take drugs and drink alcohol in excessive amounts. For him, there was no such thing as moderation.

"Our concept about whether things are good or right for Christians is not based just on the fact that we can take it or leave it," he said. "It is not only imperative that I ask the question, 'Will this be good for me physically, mentally and spiritually?' I must also ask the question, 'Is this good for everybody else with whom I come in contact?'"

Stone said he sometimes gets criticized for his views on alcohol. "A lot of people say to me, 'Ted Stone, you talk about alcohol a whole lot.' I do, because it's the No. 1 drug problem in America," he said. "Some people say, 'Well, it sounds like you wish it was illegal.' I probably do, but that's not a part of what I'm doing. Philip and I are trying to deal with the world as it is -- not as we wish it was."

On another subject, Stone disagreed with those who would say that he and Barber will always be "recovering drug addicts." That addiction and desire, Stone said, is gone forever.

"We used to be recovering individuals, but we are no longer recovering," he said. "We are recovered forever by the grace of God. We believe that that same hope needs to be imparted to everybody who hears this message."

Stone said that Jesus can deliver a person from a desire for drugs.

"I do not believe that a person who wears the tag 'alcoholic' today or the tag 'drug addict' today has to wear that nametag the rest of their days," he said. "I believe you can actually be cured. I believe we would be doing a wrong to society if we presented to them a message of hopelessness. That's what it is whenever we say to somebody, 'If you're a drug addict, you'll always be a drug addict.'"

________

Stone and Barber are coauthors of two books, "The Drug Tragedy - Hope for the One Who Hurts," and "The Drug Tragedy - Hope for the One Who Cares."

Teen drinkers more likely to have sex - U.S. study

GAINESVILLE, Fla. (Reuter) - Teen-agers who drink heavily are more likely to have sex than teens who do not drink, whatever their gender or ethnic group, a study released Friday said.

Researchers from the University of Florida, Michigan State University and the University of Wisconsin surveyed more than 15,000 students between the ages of 12 and 17 in Michigan public schools in spring and fall 1994.

They found that heavy alcohol use tripled the likelihood of teen-age sexual activity for white males, doubled it for Hispanic males and increased it by 18 percent for black males.

For all females, regardless of ethnicity, alcohol use was the only risk factor that increased the probability of sexual activity by 10 percent or more.

Research shows alcohol lowers inhibitions and interferes with people's ability to make sound decisions based on logic and thought, Daniel Perkins, a University of Florida professor who was one of the researchers, said in a statement.

"If you're both drinking alcohol and a little out of it, (sex) might seem like the right thing to do," he said.

The study also found a significantly higher proportion of black teen-age males were sexually active (79 percent) than Hispanic males (54 percent) and white males (37 percent).

Similarly, black teen-age females were more likely to be sexually active (57 percent) than their Hispanic (38 percent) and white (33 percent) counterparts.

Perkins said sexual activity might involve less of a social stigma for African Americans than for adolescents in other cultures.

The researchers said alcohol was a more important factor for all groups of teen-agers than variables such as church attendance or viewing God as unimportant in one's life.

^REUTER@

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.

*

Some Christians drink beer and some don't. Entire denominations preach against the evils of alcohol. They say the wine Jesus made at the wedding feast was actually grape juice even though the scriptures don't support that theology. Wine and strong drink aside, let's look at the issue of Christians drinking beer and see if it is right or wrong.

You can make alcohol out of almost anything from rice to raisins, from grain to grapes, from pumpkin to potatoes. If you add yeast to virtually any organic ingredient, it will ferment. In fact, many things will ferment on their own. Beer is made from barley and hops. I never understood what hops was, but it doesn't matter. Beer is beer and people seem to like it for one reason or another. Beer, more than wine carries a social stigma. Beer drinkers are in a social class all their own. They stereotypically like football games, racecars, cigarettes and dancing. They rev their engines at stoplights and whistle at girls. The more beer you add to a person, the louder they talk. Beer makes people do thinks you normally won't find in a church service.

Did you see what I just did? I verbalized the social stereotype of a beer drinker. This is how society views them whether it is accurate or not, and personally, I think it is fairly accurate. We could jump right in and quote the scripture about not eating meat offered to idols if it causes your brother to stumble, but this issue reaches farther than that. We need to determine if it is acceptable for a Christian to drink beer whether it causes someone to stumble or not. We'll not simply quote one scripture, rather a passage surrounding the scripture that people love to quote when they don't agree with something. It's easy to say, “It offends me” and hope that others stop out of courtesy.

1 Corinthians 10:23-33:

“Everything is lawful,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is lawful,” but not everything builds others up. Do not seek your own good, but the good of the other person. Eat anything that is sold in the marketplace without questions of conscience, for the earth and its abundance are the Lord’s. If an unbeliever invites you to dinner and you want to go, eat whatever is served without asking questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This is from a sacrifice,” do not eat, because of the one who told you and because of conscience — I do not mean yours but the other person’s. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I blamed for the food that I give thanks for? So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. Do not give offense to Jews or Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also try to please everyone in all things. I do not seek my own benefit, but the benefit of many, so that they may be saved.

Okay, so we all know that we shouldn't do things that offend others. If that simple fact is not enough, let's look and see if drinking beer is inherently right or wrong. To determine that, we'll just ask a few questions.

Do you think it would be appropriate to sit down and crack open a few cold ones with the Lord? Would it be appropriate to share a few beers with your friends at a church picnic? What do you think the surrounding neighborhood would think if they drove by and saw a group of Christians, standing in front of a church, laughing loudly with beer in their hands? How successful would your testimony be if you were preaching on a street corner while sucking down some suds. We all know the answers to these questions. The issue is beyond the possibilities of offending a Christian brother or sister. The world doesn't think Christians should drink beer because the world knows the effects of beer and holds Christians to a higher standard.

Christians are to live in a manner as to not offend the consciences of those who are watching whether they are Christians or not. In fact, it is worse to offend an unbeliever because you represent the Lord in all that you do. Offending an unbeliever could possibly keep them from coming to the Lord.

So how about the possibilities of drinking beer in the privacy of your own home? Say you are watching a football game and slamming down a few brewskies when there is a knock at the door. You open the door to find your neighbor standing there and you stink. Yes, beer stinks and people know it. If you drink beer, it's on your breath. If you drink enough, the smell will ooze through the pores of your skin. Your neighbor steps back a little when he smells the beer on your breath. Do you think now is a good time to invite him in and witness to him about the love of Jesus? It probably wouldn't be a good time for that, would it?

We instinctively know if a Christian should drink beer or not, but many people want to find a way to justify their actions. If you are one of them, deep in your heart you know what's right and wrong.

So the answer to the question if a Christian should drink beer or not is “no”. It will trash your testimony. Besides the church, the world thinks it is out of place for a Christian to be standing around, drinking beer with their friends because the world knows what the atmosphere is like in those groups.

1 Corinthians 10:31:

So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God.

If you honestly think you can pray and give thanks to God before sitting down to an afternoon of beer drinking, you might want to check again. God might bless the beer, but not the “WHOOOOooooooOOOOO!!! YEAH!!! GO TEAM!!!! KICK THE %&#%$ out of them!!!” which will surely follow. Even the world knows this is what usually happens when a person gets enough beer in their belly. They know it is not conducive to a healthy Christian life of prayer, thanksgiving and praise to God.

Before anyone asks, non-alcoholic beer is nothing more than a minor technicality. It looks like beer and smells like beer. The world sees it as beer. Beer is more than a drink. It is a complete social tradition, one that doesn't fit the sanctified Christian life. It is not akin to eating meat offered to idols. It is akin to partying with unbelievers in the manner to which they are accustomed.

Here are some statistics to prove that beer drinking is more than a casual pastime. 12-ounce beers consumed annually per capita:

Czech Republic 454

Ireland 354

Germany 348

U.S.A. 244

France 102

Imagine, in the United States, 244 12-ounce beers are consumed for every man, woman and child every year. Now, if neither my wife nor I drink beer, that means someone out there is doubling up. I hope it isn't you.

May the breath of God be in your testimony.

__________

Copyright © Rod Ellis

*

Ability is what you're capable of doing.

Motivation determines what you do.

Attitude determines how well you do it.

- Lou Holtz

"Authorities now know that approximately one person in sixteen who ever takes a social drink will become an alcoholic! How many of you would get on an airplane if before it took off you knew there was a 1 out of 16 chance that it would crash and destroy your life. Actually, the odds for a commercial airliner crashing are closer to 1 out of 1,000,000; but even with those odds some people will not fly. Yet many of these same people will take a drink!" - Zig Ziglar

From a 1999 police report in The Messenger (Madisonville, Kentucky), concerning two trucks being driven strangely on a rural road: A man would drive one truck 100 yards, stop, walk back to a second truck, drive it 100 yards beyond the first truck, stop, walk back to the first truck, drive it 100 yards beyond the second truck, and so on. According to police, the man's brother had passed out drunk in one of the trucks so the man decided to drive both trucks home. Not surprisingly, blood-alcohol tests showed that BOTH of them were impaired.

________

The Messenger, May 7, 1999

*

“How about beer with your Bible?”

That’s the question NBC’s “Today” show host Campbell Brown asked March 4 on national television to introduce a report titled “Beer and Bibles: New Churches Lure Young Members.”

Featured in the two-and-a-half minute segment was Darrin Patrick, founder and senior pastor of The Journey in St. Louis -- a Southern Baptist church with ties to the emerging church movement, the North American Mission Board and the Missouri Baptist Convention, which loaned the church $200,000 to help start a church planting center.

The emerging church movement is diverse and difficult to generalize. However, the mix of influences includes: postmodernism (a focus on sense-making through the various mediums of culture); Calvinism ala John Piper; and for some, Christian liberty, as granted by their scriptural interpretation, to drink alcohol and engage in other cultural activities that many Southern Baptists eschew based on opposing scriptural interpretation.

NBC spotlighted The Journey’s “Theology at the Bottleworks,” a church-sponsored discussion group in a bar where alcohol is available to attendees.

“This isn’t just a brew pub, it’s a church,” NBC reporter Jennifer London said, describing the room where the meeting is held. The “church” in reality is the Schlafly Bottleworks where The Journey reaches out to younger adults who might not consider going to a traditional church setting.

Patrick told Baptist Press he abstains from alcohol and that The Journey “doesn’t personally encourage nor corporately promote the use of alcohol.”

However, the reporter emphasized the link.

“Followers say they may come for the beer, but they stay for the Bible,” London said. “And back at the brew pub, it’s about saving souls, one beer at a time.”

Some attending the Theology at the Bottleworks gathering also made the connection between alcohol and the outreach effort. Erin Ryan, who accepted Christ at one of the meetings, told the NBC crew, “You sit down over a glass of wine or a pint of ale or something like that, and you can connect with people more.”

NBC’s focus on the novelty of the methodology obscured the apparent serious approach The Journey has taken in reaching a cultural-generational demographic group. The Journey’s strategy has helped the congregation grow from 30 to almost 2,000 since its 2002 beginning. Last fall it planted the Refuge Church in St. Charles, Mo. and it is assessing church start possibilities in Illinois.

Patrick, in e-mails to Baptist Press, was clear that beer was not a tenet of his non-traditional methodologies. Last December, The Journey’s website included an invitation to “grab a brew, share your view” when attending the Theology at the Bottleworks meeting. A picture of people raising glasses of beer in an apparent toast appeared adjacent to an essay by Patrick on the church’s website. Patrick attributed the content to a secular website design company hired by the church. He told Baptist Press he had the alcohol-related verbiage and picture removed as soon as they came to his attention because “it does not reflect the values of our church.”

Still, the church’s unconventional means of reaching the lost might be shaping its internal culture as much as the church is shaping others. The bio of The Journey’s mission pastor, Jonathan MacIntosh, mentions that he enjoys drinks with his wife “at the almost secret bar beneath Brennan’s in the Central West End.”

The “Today” show feature about The Journey was not the first time “beer and the Bible” garnered media attention. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran a lengthy article on its Sunday, Jan. 28, front page detailing the alcohol controversy associated with The Journey.

Referring to a Theology at the Bottleworks meeting, the Post-Dispatch article gave this description of the atmosphere: “In a back room at Schlafly Bottleworks in Maplewood, about 50 people gathered on a recent Wednesday night to talk rock ‘n’ roll.... Beer-stained wooden tables and the smell of hops complemented a free-flowing, spirited debate among hip young people in scruffy beards and T-shirts.”

Patrick stressed that the Bottleworks ministry was a means to reach out to unchurched people in their cultural setting. Asked about negative perceptions and the number of biblical references that warn about the dangers of alcohol, Patrick told Baptist Press, “We don’t believe that having a current event discussion at a bar is unbiblical.

“We try to choose venues for these events where un-churched members of our community would feel comfortable,” he said. “Others have taken place at restaurants, coffee shops, office buildings and cafes.”

Patrick, who is vice president of Acts 29, an association of emergent churches, conceded that as a group, Acts 29 holds a “much more liberal view” of alcohol use than The Journey.

Some website material seems to support his conclusion.

The pastor of an Acts 29 church in San Diego (non-SBC), for example, claims on the Internet: “Beer is one of our core values. We enjoy it and like to drink it.” Although the statement appears meant for humor, it seems to show a casualness of attitude about alcohol consumption.

Another Acts 29 church (also non-SBC) -- the Seattle-area Damascus Road Church -- sponsors a men’s poker night for which gamblers are encouraged to bring beer. The website also states: “There is just something about having food on your plate and a drink in your hand that makes fellowship that much easier. Whether the food is healthy or fattening, or the drink is coffee or beer, we desire to follow Christ’s example.”

The alcohol issue goes straight to the top at Acts 29, whose president, Mark Driscoll -- who is pastor of the Seattle-area Mars Hill Church -- wrote in his book, “Radical Reformission,” that abstinence from alcohol is a sin. In a chapter titled “The Sin of Light Beer,” Driscoll explains that he came to this conclusion while preparing a sermon on the Lord’s miracle at Cana where Jesus turned water into wine.

According to information published on the church’s website, Mars Hill sponsored a New Year’s Eve party that included a champagne bar. Mars Hill’s website also advertises “beer-brewing lessons ... whenever a large group of (Mars Hill) men get together.”

Dricsoll is controversial also for once having the reputation of the “cussing pastor.” However, as he recounted on his blog, he finally listened to a friend who helped him realize he was becoming known for “good theology, a bad temper, and a foul mouth,” and he repented, starting with a public apology.

Patrick’s SBC connections include the North American Mission Board. He co-chaired NAMB’s Young Leaders Task Force with Ed Stetzer, a NAMB employee who is on the board of Acts 29. The task force last met over a year ago.

Stetzer defends his board member status with Acts 29, saying, “There are a lot of sharp young guys in Acts 29 churches planting theologically driven churches, so I have the opportunity to influence and encourage them in what I believe are positive ways. Honestly, few other Southern Baptists have this opportunity, and I would rather choose to risk and influence than to pass up being a positive force among the guys at Acts 29.”

Some of those within Acts 29, Stetzer said, “unfortunately overemphasize what they see as ‘Christian liberty.’ That dynamic often comes with some younger pastors, and I do my best to remind all involved to think biblically about such issues; and everyone in Acts 29 knows my views.

“Regardless,” he said, “I think it is a good thing that there is now an inerrantist wing (Acts 29) of the emerging church with solid theology.”

Stetzer, who has stated publicly his opposition to alcohol, told Baptist Press he joined the Acts 29 board after speaking at their conferences, establishing a friendship with Driscoll and also procuring “NAMB upline approval.”

“There are, by the way, other more notable evangelicals who’ve spoken at events and advised Acts 29, such as John Piper, Tim Keller and Joshua Harris,” Stetzer said.

There are other SBC connections to Acts 29.

According to the Mars Hill Church’s website, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary professor Bruce Ware will headline the Acts 29 annual event known as the Resurgence Conference, March 23-24. An SBTS spokesman said Ware would be talking on the openness of God, which he speaks about across the country as “one of the leading defenders of the traditional, biblical understanding of the God’s sovereignty.”

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C., has scheduled Driscoll to speak at a conference there in September, according to the school’s website. A spokesman for SEBTS explained that the conference would address important theological issues surrounding emerging and traditional churches, and Driscoll, as “a leading voice in the diverse emerging church movement,” was invited to contribute to “what we hope will be a valuable and fruitful discussion.”

As a loan recipient from the Missouri Baptist Convention, The Journey -- because of its practices primarily related to alcohol -- has raised controversy within the state convention.

MBC Executive Director David Clippard explained by e-mail to Baptist Press that when he heard allegations about possible promotion of alcohol consumption by The Journey, “Within hours, I personally contacted Pastor Darrin Patrick and his response both verbally and in writing was that Journey Church does not promote or encourage alcohol use.”

MBC board members Kerry Messer and Ron Turnbull attended one of The Journey’s Bottleworks meetings on their own initiative. Both expressed displeasure that a church would sponsor a meeting in a bar.

Still, Patrick insists The Journey is a Southern Baptist church in doctrine and practice.

Yet, concerns persist about the theological and doctrinal moorings of both The Journey and the Acts 29 Network.

Missouri Baptist and SBC Executive Committee member Roger Moran told Baptist Press: “No Southern Baptist entity or personality should be loaning our denominational credibility to such churches or organizations as The Journey and Acts 29. We simply cannot do that for movements that are dripping with error and expect good to come out of it.”

Moran addressed the Executive Committee Feb. 20 regarding his concerns relative to Acts 29, saying in part, “One of the most dangerous and deceptive movements to infiltrate the ranks of Southern Baptist life has been the emerging/emergent church movement. Not since the stealth tactics of the CBF (Cooperative Baptist Fellowship) have we seen a movement operate so successfully below the radar of rank and file Southern Baptists.”

After Moran spoke, Executive Committee President Morris H. Chapman suggested that Moran prepare his statements for submission to LifeWay Christian Resources which in response to two referrals from last year’s SBC annual meeting in Greensboro, N.C., will be conducting research “relating to Calvinism, the emergent church, elder rule and other topics of interest and discussion in Southern Baptist life.”

“Church history confirms what 2 Chronicles 7:14 says,” Moran told Baptist Press later by phone. “Revival comes to a nation when God’s people get right -- when they return to holiness, purity, obedience, faithfulness, and to the intent of Scripture and the purposes of God.”

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #19222]

“There is no refuge from confession but suicide,” observed American statesman Daniel Webster. “And suicide is confession.” When Hunter S. Thompson took his own life on Feb. 20 at his home near Aspen, CO., he confessed that success and licentiousness are poor sources for hope.

Thompson, who was 67 years old at the time of his suicide, was the author of many books and countless news articles. He was best known for the 1972 best-seller “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.” Thompson’s widespread literary fame stemmed from his creation of “gonzo” journalism, in which the reporter becomes a prominent part of his own story.

While critics and writers lauded Thompson’s literary prowess, it was his larger-than-life debauchery that constantly took center-stage, to the point that it overshadowed his prose. Alcohol and drugs so dominated his life that The Philadelphia Inquirer once described him thusly: “Hunter S. Thompson is to drug-addled, stream of consciousness, psycho-political black humor what Forrest Gump is to idiot savants.”

“I was a notorious best-selling author of weird and brutal books and also a widely feared newspaper columnist,” Thompson once said of himself. “I was also drunk, crazy and heavily armed at all times.”

One anecdote Thompson shared involved a time his physician warned him that his esophagus was being damaged by a duodenal ulcer. The doctor explained that drinking alcohol would only exacerbate the problem. Refusing to be forced into sobriety by a physical malady, Thompson obtained a syringe with a five-inch hypodermic needle. He filled it with gin and injected the contents directly into his stomach.

In all of the tributes to Thompson appearing in print and on the Internet, few have described him as an alcoholic or a drug addict. Based on his self-descriptions, he likely was both. It is a sad commentary that in America, bad and destructive behavior is often overlooked, even excused, if one is considered talented or famous.

As to why Thompson placed a gun to his head and pulled the trigger, no one seems to really know. Since the man known for his loquacious prose left no suicide note, his motive for killing himself is left to speculation.

Douglas Brinkley, who has edited two volumes of Thompson’s published letters, and is working on a third, told USA Today that he had spoken to Thompson two days before he died.

“He was getting to the age that his body was not cooperating with his lifestyle, but he had his flaming intellect to the bitter end,” Brinkley was quoted as saying.

If dementia was not the cause for Thompson’s suicide, what was? Speculation among his admirers vacillates between rationalization and romanticism.

Those who seek to rationalize Thompson’s suicide point to physical pain caused by surgeries and a recently broken leg. David Carr of The New York Times wrote, “But a chronic series of physical infirmities -– he had to use a wheel chair at times –- left him feeling that he was finally being maneuvered by forces he could not medicate or write into obscurity.”

The consensus among those who try to romanticize Thompson’s suicide is that he wanted to leave life the way he had lived it -– on his own terms. His wife told The Denver Post, “He lived like a champion and he died like a champion.” Douglas Brinkley told USA Today, “... this is the way he wanted to go out –- in a blaze.”

All attempts to rationalize and romanticize suicide, even Hunter Thompson’s, cannot obscure the fact that the act of taking one’s life is the result of a hopelessness that is conceived from the union of misery and despair.

To describe anyone’s suicide as courageous or heroic makes the act seem more attractive, especially to someone who is groping for hope and searching for a reason to live. To justify it in Thompson’s case, a man who had long marinated himself in a mix of booze, narcotics and unbridled adventure, is disingenuous -- talent notwithstanding.

Hope provides a motive for life. Hunter Thompson’s suicide is a confession that hope does not flow from success and cannot be discovered in hedonistic pursuits. Hope is a byproduct of faith, and its most enduring source is God who is revealed in the Bible.

________

Kelly Boggs is pastor of the Portland-area Valley Baptist Church in McMinnville, Oregon.

*

SOME INTRODUCTORY BIBLE FACTS ABOUT WINE:

1. The word wine in the Bible is a generic term; sometimes it means grape juice; sometimes it means alcoholic beverages. The following verses prove that the word “wine” can mean fresh grape juice, the fruit of the vine: De. 11:14; 2 Ch. 31:5; Ne. 13:15; Pr. 3:10; Is. 16:10; 65:8; 1 Ti. 5:23.

2. The context will always show when “wine” refers to alcoholic beverages. In such cases, God discusses the bad effects of it and warns against it. An example would be Gen. 9, Noah's experience after the Flood. Verse 21, “and he drank of the wine, and was drunken,” clearly refers to alcoholic beverage. Prov. 20:1 speaks of the same thing when it warns us, “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging; and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.” Alcoholic wine is deceptive; but how? In the very way that people are advocating today, by saying that drinking a little bit will not hurt. Everyone admits that drinking too much is bad; even the liquor companies tell us not to drive and drink, but they insist that a small amount is all right. However, that is the very thing that is deceptive. Who knows how little to drink? Experts tell us that each person is different. It takes an ounce to affect one, while more is necessary for another. The same person will react to alcohol differently, depending on the amount of food he has had, among other things. So, the idea that “a little bit won't hurt” is deceptive, and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise!

Prov. 23:30-31 refers to alcoholic wine, because it tells us in the previous verse that those who drink it have woe, sorrow, contentions, babbling, wounds without cause, and redness of eyes. What a graphic description of those who “tarry long” at alcoholism. Verses 32-35 continue the same description; context always makes it clear when alcohol is meant.

3. Scripture warns against the drinking of alcoholic wine. The Bible is consistent on this, both in the Old and New Testaments. The two previously quoted passages, Pr. 20:1 and 23:29-35, are good examples of scriptural warnings against consuming alcohol. Pr. 23:32 says “at the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.” Verse 33 shows that it will cause one to look at strange women (that is, not one's wife) and to say perverse things, or things which he would not say if he were sober. Verse 34 predicts that it will cause death, such as drowning, or loneliness, such as lying upon the top of a mast. Verse 35 warns against numbness (“they have beaten me and I felt it not”) and “addiction (“when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again”).

Prov. 31:4-5 teaches, “It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink: lest they drink and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted.” The danger is obvious.

By the way, Prov. 31:6,7 give us the only legitimate use of alcoholic wine in Scripture. “Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.” This would be using it as an anesthetic; a painkiller. But this is not for everyone; he says in V. 6, “unto him that is ready to perish.” Of course, they did not have all the painkillers that we have today. In our time, it would not be necessary to do this. We have many anesthetics available for those who are dying. Then, about the only thing available to the average person would have been some kind of alcohol. Alcohol is a depressant; it is not a stimulant, as some think. After several drinks, one gets dizzy; then he will pass out. So this passage teaches that alcoholic beverage would be only for the person who is ready to die; there would be no hope for his life. All that would be possible would be to ease his pain and help him forget his misery.

Another passage is Isa. 5:11. “Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them!” Obviously this is alcoholic, because it inflames. Why does he say, “Woe unto them”? Verse 12 answers, “...they regard not the work of the Lord, neither consider the operation of his hands.” Everyone knows that when one gives himself to the drinking of alcoholic beverage, he will not be more spiritual, more desirous of learning the Word of God. To the contrary, it causes a person to ignore the Lord. Verses 13-14 reveal two other serious results: people go into captivity (become slaves to something or someone) and Hell enlarges itself! The drinking of alcoholic wine has caused Hell to be enlarged! God does not want anyone to go to Hell; He has given the greatest, dearest gift that He possibly could, to rescue sinners from it. He never made Hell for people. The Lord Jesus Christ said that Hell was prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt. 25:41). However, because of evil alcohol, Hell has had an enlargement campaign. Here, then, is a clear warning against drinking alcohol, because God does not want anyone to go to Hell.

Isa. 28:7,8 continues the warning. “But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment. For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean.”

What a tragic thing, that even in the days of Isaiah, the priests and prophets were engaged in the drinking of alcoholic wine! Thus we see that the problem of preachers recommending alcohol is not new. Six hundred years before Christ, demon alcohol had worked its way into religion.

4. The making of alcoholic beverages is not a strictly natural process. Years ago I took for granted that if you took the juice of a grape and let it alone, not refrigerating it, it would automatically, in time, turn into alcoholic wine. There are several reasons why this is not true. It takes more than time to make wine. Sometimes people try to defend its use by saying that it must be good because God made it. But, the fact is, God did not make it. Man has learned how to make alcoholic liquors through processes that he has invented. Wine-makers know that one must have the correct amount of water, sugar, and temperature to make wine. Keeping grape juice in a refrigerator would prevent if from fermenting, because the temperature is not right. Likewise, hot, tropical temperature would prevent fermentation.

In ancient days, before we had refrigeration and vacuum-sealing ability, people learned to preserve the juice of the grape without turning it into alcoholic wine. Many people boiled it down into thick syrup. By doing so, they could preserve it for long periods of time. When they got ready to drink it, they would simply add the water to the consistency desired, in much the same way that we take frozen concentrates and add water. In Bible days, contrary to what many believe, it was not necessary for everyone to drink alcoholic wine as a table beverage.

I recommend the book entitled Bible Wines and the Laws of Fermentation by William Patton (Challenge Press, Emmaus, PA). More than a hundred years ago, this preacher was the only one in his town who believed in total abstinence. He saw that it was necessary to make an extensive study to see what scripture taught. This book is the result of that labor and is the very best thing I have read on the subject.

[Editor (David Cloud): Natural processes alone will produce fermentation under certain conditions, but these natural processes, if unaided by man, rapidly move to a vinegar state. The alcoholic beverages industry is very much a man-made thing.]

Now we come to the longest point in this entire study, but one which is most important, chiefly because so many insist that Jesus made and drank alcoholic wine.

TEN PROOFS THAT JESUS DID NOT MAKE OR DRINK ALCOHOLIC WINE:

THE FIRST REASON IS BECAUSE OF HIS HOLY NATURE. In Heb. 7:26, we read that the Lord Jesus is “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners.” No doubt, the Saviour, being God in the flesh, had an air of holiness about Himself that could be seen by even the most casual observer. For instance, the profane soldiers, who were sent to arrest Him, gave as their reason for returning without Him, that “never a man spake like this man.” (John 7:46) The words of Jesus were different; He, no doubt, had a very holy appearance, character, and speech.

Why is this so important? Consider this illustration. The word “cider” may mean an alcoholic beverage, or plain apple juice. Suppose we lived during the 1920s, prohibition days, and were approached by two people offering us a drink of cider. One of the persons, we knew to be one of the holiest men in town, faithful to the house of God, separated from the world, diligent in prayers, always witnessing to others; the other was a known liquor dealer. If each one offered us a drink of “his very own cider,” we would assume that the holy person's was no more than apple juice, but there would be no doubt about our opinion regarding the liquor dealer's cider! Obviously, the character of a person influences what that one does.

Since the Lord Jesus Christ was “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners,” we may safely assume that He would not make that which is called in Scripture a mocker and deceiver of man, causing untold misery.

A SECOND REASON IS THAT HE WOULD NOT CONTRADICT SCRIPTURE. In Mt. 5:17- 18, Christ made this clear, saying, “Think not that I am come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Therefore, Christ could not have contradicted Hab. 2:15, “Woe unto him that giveth his neighbor drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!”

Certainly, Jesus knew that this verse was in the Bible; He was well-acquainted with Scripture, since it is His Word and was written about Him. He did not come to violate Scripture, but to fulfill it. He could not have done so, if He had made alcoholic wine and had given it to his neighbor.

Some people object to the use of this verse by saying that it would apply only to one who would give his neighbor drink for the purpose of looking on his nakedness. But we must remember: when one gives his neighbor something which will make him drunk, he is putting himself in the very class of those who do so in order to look on their nakedness. And since the Scripture commands us to “abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Th. 5:22), we can be sure that the Lord Jesus would not have done something that would have been associated with such an evil practice as that described in Hab. 2:15. For the same reason, no Christian should be engaged in the selling of alcoholic beverage.

THE THIRD REASON IS THAT LEV. 10:9-11 COMMANDS THE PRIEST OF GOD NOT TO DRINK WINE OR STRONG DRINK. “Do not drink wine nor strong drink ... that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean; and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statues which the Lord hath spoken...” Now, since Heb. 2:17 calls Christ “a merciful and faithful high priest,” we would expect Him to obey all Scriptures pertaining to that office. If He had made or drunk alcoholic wine, He would have disobeyed these verses and would have been disqualified from teaching the children of Israel the statues of the Lord.

THE FOURTH REASON IS FOUND IN A PASSAGE WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERED: PR. 31:4-5 PROHIBITS KINGS AND PRINCES FROM DRINKING ALCOHOLIC WINE OR ANY OTHER STRONG DRINK. IF THEY HAD DONE SO, THEIR JUDGMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN PERVERTED. It was necessary for Christ to obey these verses also, since He was Prince of Peace (Isa. 9:6) and King of Kings (Rev. 19:16). In Mt. 27:11, He admitted to being the King of the Jews. He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey's colt, to fulfill Zec. 9:9, which prophesied that Israel's king would enter the city in just that way. Undoubtedly, He was king, and as such, would have had to obey Prov. 31:4-5.

REASON FIVE IS THAT CHRIST DID NOT COME TO MOCK OR DECEIVE PEOPLE, yet Prov. 20:1 says that wine does both. Rather than coming to mock or deceive he came to save!

REASON SIX IS THAT HE DID NOT COME TO SEND PEOPLE TO HELL. We have already seen that Isa. 5:11-14 teaches that Hell had to be enlarged because of the drinking of alcoholic beverage. Christ did not come to send people to Hell; listen to Jn. 3:17: “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.”

REASON SEVEN IS THAT CHRIST DID NOT COME TO CAST A STUMBLINGBLOCK BEFORE ANYONE; yet, Rom. 14:21 teaches that a person who gives another alcoholic wine does just that. “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.” Everyone who has studied the problem of alcoholism has learned that some people cannot handle any amount of alcohol, while others may drink one or two “social” drinks and stop. Experts do not know why this is true; various theories have been propounded, but nothing has been proved to be true regarding every person. Some say it is chemical; others insist that it must be psychological. The fact is, we do not know for certain. In any given group of people, there would be several potential alcoholics. What a shame it would be for a person, who is a potential slave to it, to get his first taste at the Lord's Table in church, then proceed down the road of misery to an alcoholic's grave! I certainly would not want my children to get their first taste of alcohol at the family meal; nor would I want them to get it at church. One or more of them could well be potential alcoholics. As evidence that this is possible, we should consider that some denominations which serve alcoholic wine in their religious services also operate homes for alcoholic priests!

But we can be absolutely sure that Christ did not come to cause others to stumble!

THE EIGHTH REASON IS THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT WINE OF JOHN 2 BE ALCOHOLIC. Many insist that it was alcoholic, on the basis of John 2:10, which says, “Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now.” They would say that, in those days, it was common to serve the best alcoholic wine at first, saving the worst until later, when men's tastes have been dulled by much drinking. But the point is just the opposite here! These people could definitely recognize that the wine which Jesus made was much better than what they had been served at first. This could not have been possible if they were already well on their way to becoming intoxicated! The fact is, neither the wine which they had at first, nor that which Christ made, was alcoholic.

REASON NINE IS THAT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN GLORY FROM MAKING DRUNK PEOPLE DRUNKER. Verse 11 is most important when it states that, by this miracle, Jesus “manifested forth his glory.” Verse 10 indicates that the people had drunk quite a bit of whatever kind of wine they were drinking. If it had been alcoholic, they would have been intoxicated, or nearly so. Had Christ made alcoholic wine, He would have made drunk people drunker, or almost-drunk people completely drunk! Such a deed would certainly not have manifested any glory to Him!

THE TENTH REASON IS THAT MAKING DRUNK PEOPLE DRUNKER WOULD NOT HAVE CAUSED HIS DISCIPLES TO BELIEVE MORE STRONGLY ON HIM, yet verse 11 says that, as a result of what He did in turning the water into wine, “his disciples believed on him.” Jn. 1:41 shows that they had already believed on Him as Messiah; this was a deepening of their faith and a proof that they had not been wrong. Would making drunk people drunker inspire such faith? The opposite would be likely! They were not looking for a Messiah who would pass out free booze! Thus, because of the description of this miracle and its result, we can not conclude otherwise than that this wine was non-alcoholic.

*

Millions of dollars are spent every year on advertisements by the alcohol industry in soliciting us constantly to invest in alcohol. As a result of their efforts, there are millions of alcoholics in the United States who spend $185 billion each year for alcoholic beverages. Statistics show that there are far more victims of alcohol than any other drug in this nation.

Seventy percent of those alcoholics began drinking when they were teenagers. Is this a problem among young people? Absolutely! There’s a tremendous amount of peer pressure on our young people to use alcohol. Many times, the pressure comes from their families and out of the refrigerators in their own homes.

In the Old Testament Proverbs, there is a warning portrayed from father to son:

• “Do not mix with winebibbers ... for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and drowsiness will clothe a man with rags. Listen to your father who begot you, and do not despise your mother when she is old. Buy the truth, and do not sell it, also wisdom and instruction and understanding” (Proverbs 23:19-23).

• “Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has complaints? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes? Those who linger long at the wine, those who go in search of mixed wine” (Proverbs 23:29-30).

• “Your eyes will see strange things, and your heart will utter perverse things. Yes, you will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, Or like one who lies at the top of the mast, saying: ‘They have struck me, but I was not hurt; they have beaten me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake, that I may seek another drink?’” (Proverbs 23:33-35).

Think about the consequences of alcohol today: poverty, gluttony, immorality and laziness. Families are being torn apart and people are being destroyed because of alcohol. And it seems that our nation is blind to the cost of it.

Unfortunately, the dependency upon alcohol has increased tremendously over the years. And one group that is struggling with dependency is teens. Approximately 11 million teenagers under the age of 21 drink alcohol, and most of them drink to excess, according to the American Medical Association.

The AMA has reported that alcohol is used most by high school seniors and usage continues to increase. Young men usually try alcohol for the first time at just 11 years old, and the average girl has her first drink at 13. Our nation’s youth are flirting with danger and learning that alcohol should be simply another common pattern in their ritualistic lives.

It’s time to learn the facts. Alcohol is not a stimulant; it is a narcotic and therefore causes one to lose control. When alcohol enters the bloodstream, one’s inhibitions are loosened. It causes people to lie, physically and emotionally abuse their loved ones, deprive their families, commit adultery, and cause destruction -- even death.

We need to get back to the place where we know that drunkenness is sin and realize that alcohol creates instability physically, emotionally and spiritually.

It brings misery and sorrow. People drink for happiness, but they’re still unhappy. They drink for sociability, but become argumentative. They drink for sophistication, but become obnoxious. They drink for confidence, but become doubtful.

There is an old Japanese proverb that says, “First the man takes the drink, and then the drink takes the man.” That statement couldn’t be truer, and we need to learn to take a stand and not associate with this deadly business because the consequences are severe.

In my estimation, there is only one cure for this problem we have and it is not moderation. The only answer is total abstinence. Scripture says, “Do not look on the wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it swirls around smoothly; at the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like a viper” (Proverbs 23:31-32).

Many people will disagree with me on this and excuse their drinking by saying, “People drank wine in the Bible.” But the Bible talks of two different kinds of wines -- one that is permissible and another that is not; one that is similar to grape juice before fermentation and another that is intoxicating. When intoxicating wine is presented in the Bible, it is strongly condemned.

The Apostle Paul said, “[D]o you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?” (1 Corinthians 6:19).

The Word of God is clear. Remain totally abstinent of all things that are displeasing to Him. Christians who are concerned about their neighbors, friends and family should always ask before they decide to take a drink: Will this offend others? Will it cause someone else to stumble? (see Romans 14:21).

I once heard about a group of preachers at a restaurant. The waitress came to the table and said, “Would you all like a drink?” One of the men said, “No, I had a drink 30 years ago that has satisfied me to this day.”

Her eyes got big and he said, “Have you ever heard of a drink like that?

The waitress replied, “No, sir.”

The preacher exclaimed, “It’s the drink of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.”

Jesus is that drink. Why settle for substitutes? He can satisfy every desire and quench one’s thirst for God, life, peace and meaning. What is the answer for prevention of more problems with alcohol in America? Proverbs 23:31. Make a commitment -- leave it alone. Practice total abstinence. That’s the answer. What is the cure for the issue of alcohol in our world and nation? Jesus is the answer.

*

Sermon in a series on Proverbs. Proverbs 25:28

IN CONTROL FROM THE TOP DOWN

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

I. Are you in the driver's seat?

II. Control Your Brain - Alcohol.

A. Affects of drinking.

1) Associated with antisocial behavior. 20:1

2) Dulls the senses. 23:21

3) Poisons over the long term. 23:32

B. Baptists and booze.

1) Traditionally, we have preaching abstinence.

2) Does the Bible condemn alcohol?

3) The Bible's alternative. Ephesians 5:18

III. Control Your Mouth - Words.

A. Keep them few. 10:19, 11:12

B. Keep them positive. 12:18, 16:24

C. Keep them true. 26:28

IV. Control Your Heart - Temper.

A. Rage is a big problem these days. 30:33

B. Use self-control to make your point. 16:32

V. Control Your Loins - Sex.

A. Proverbs gives more advice here than any other area.

B. What sex outside of marriage forgets to consider.

C. Sex has power.

VI. Control Your Feet - Peers.

A. Who do you walk with?

B. Quality matters more than quantity. 18:24

VII. Self-control molds us into the people God wants us to be.

A study conducted by Duke University that examined the lives of its women students portrayed college life as a soul-deadening, booze-fueled marathon of sexual predation:

Students rarely go on formal dates but instead attend

parties in large groups, followed by “hook-ups” –

unplanned sexual encounters typically fueled by alcohol.

Men and women agreed the double standard persists: men

gain status through sexual activity while women lose

status.

Anthropologist Elizabeth Chin wrote: “The whole hookup thing is, you get really drunk so that, at some level, you can’t be responsible. And then you hook up and then there’s no obligation. It’s bad manners, in fact, to sort of get emotionally connected to the person. But I don’t think any of them like it that much. . . . It’s dehumanizing. And it’s very alienating. It’s sort of like they have to deaden themselves before they can go do it.”

Joshua Hanson, a 29-year-old bar owner, spent the night drinking with his buddies at a couple of bars in St. Paul, Minnesota. They headed back to their hotel rooms in the early morning hours. When Joshua got off the elevator on his floor, for some reason he decided to take off running. Sprinting down the hallway alone, he said he was confused by the reflection on the window pane at the end. With a crash, the 275-pound former prep football player and wrestler broke through a double-paned window with a safety bar. It was the 16th floor.

He Joshua landed on a concrete overhang one floor above the street. It helped to cushion his fall, but he still broke his leg, collapsed both lungs and tore his trachea. He has no memory of the plunge.

One month later, asked if he could explain why he survived, Hanson said: “I wish I knew, for real I do. Somebody had a plan for me.” He added that one reason he survived is his 8-year-old daughter, Kaitlyn.

The fall has made him more contemplative and given him a fresh perspective, he said, though he didn’t know whether it would cause him to drink less.

“I went to church the first Sunday I got home, no doubt about it,” he said. “There ain’t too many days go by that I don’t thank God that I’m still here.”

“He didn’t move, so I drove into the back of him,” explained Paul D. Keith, 75, to police in Framingham, Massachusetts, who were investigating the collision. “When the light turns green, you’re supposed to go and I did.” Keith saw the green light and proceeded, even though the car in front of him was in the way.

“He was confident in his feeling that he had the right of way,” a police spokesman said. “We weren’t. He was arrested.” Keith was charged with third-offense drunk driving.

________

Framingham Metro West Daily News

Police officers in Bethesda, Maryland, were called to a wild college fraternity party. When officers pulled up in front of the house, they saw two young men carrying an intoxicated 18-year-old woman to an Uber car. She was taken to the hospital to be treated for alcohol poisoning. Police discovered 200 partygoers just on the first floor. Another 50 to 75 people were huddled in the garage. Underage drinkers hid in closets, under beds and anywhere they could find when officers moved in. The house was so packed, investigators estimated the air temperature to be 100 degrees.

The inside of the house was trashed during the party, with beer seeping through the floor into the basement. Alcohol was so abundant, a preliminary breath test registered .09, just in the ambient air. That’s above the legal level of intoxication for a Maryland driver.

Alcohol citations were given to more than 100 underage drinkers. Providing alcohol to minors is not a criminal offense in the state of Maryland, so the 22-year-old who was leasing the house was charged with civil offenses and faces fines up to $2,500 per underage partygoer, though he’s unlikely to get a $275,000 penalty. The 22-year-old president of the fraternity was arrested for striking a police officer in the chest and eye. [1]

Proverbs 20:1 - “Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise.”

Proverbs 23:30-35 - “Those who linger over wine, who go to sample bowls of mixed wine. Do not gaze at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it goes down smoothly! In the end it bites like a snake and poisons like a viper. Your eyes will see strange sights and your mind imagine confusing things. You will be like one sleeping on the high seas, lying on top of the rigging. ‘They hit me,’ you will say, ‘but I’m not hurt! They beat me, but I don’t feel it! When will I wake up so I can find another drink?’”

________

[1] © 2016 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

If we could, allow us to finish out this mini-series by making a brief case for Christians to abstain from intoxicating substances for pleasurable purposes. Due to space, I offer but two of many reasons which could readily be marshaled in support.

• First, abstinence is absolutely preferable. When it comes to ethical options for biblical Christians to entertain pertaining to their moral stance toward consuming intoxicating beverages for pleasurable purposes, there are really only two broad options to consider. On the one hand, the believer may choose abstinence, the view which this mini-series advocates. And, on the other hand, many believers choose what is popularly known as moderation. Obviously, there exist other views. However, surely no Bible-believing Christian considers the undisciplined indulgence of dangerous intoxicants a viable moral option. Hence, we will consider either abstinence or moderation to be the superior moral option for believing Christians.

When we compare the two options, it is our view that abstinence is definitively the moral option believers should both embrace and practice. As I show below, abstinence is not only thoroughly biblical but also fully consistent with other factors bearing on our moral impulse. Contrarily, moderation has more to do with Athens than Jerusalem, to borrow Tertullian’s legendary comparison. That is, moderately consuming intoxicating substances for pleasurable purposes gleans its moral underpinnings more from Greek philosophy than biblical revelation. Aristotle’s “golden mean” between virtue and vice or courage and cowardice fits nicely the moral trajectory of those embracing moderation.

Exactly what do those who embrace moderation mean when they propose the moderate consumption of intoxicating beverages? The catch phrase which sums up the position we call moderation is pithy and precise: the Bible does not condemn the use of alcoholic beverages but the abuse of alcoholic beverages. Hence, to drink a few beers with the boys as they watch the Braves shame the Yankees is not what the Bible condemns. Instead, this viewpoint holds, the Bible clearly condemns drunkenness, the abuse of alcoholic beverages.

As a reminder here, we note that both views fully agree that the Bible condemns drunkenness. A glance at the Scriptures demonstrates this beyond question. Therefore, those who embrace abstinence have no moral reservations in happily agreeing with moderationists on the biblical warnings against drunkenness. The real question is, whether the Bible offers any prohibitive indicators toward the use of intoxicating substances. The moderation view denies that the Bible offers moral indicators against the consumption of alcoholic beverages for pleasurable purposes (“wine” for medicinal purposes is not in question here, as discussed in 1 Timothy 5:23).

But the Bible not only condemns drunkenness, it also puts in place the moral underpinnings to condemn consuming intoxicating beverages for pleasurable purposes. Indeed it is not too much to conclude that if moderationists are correct concerning the Bible’s moral trajectory for moderation, then it proves entirely too much. How so? Consider: If the Bible does not condemn the use of intoxicating beverages for pleasurable purposes, then the Bible does not condemn the use of other intoxicating substances for pleasurable purposes.

For example, if moderationists are correct, how could we morally argue against the moderate consumption of marijuana for pleasurable purposes? Or, for any number of other mind-altering drugs for that matter? Granted, some may respond, “Yes. But marijuana is illegal. Therefore, because we are to obey government (Romans 13), it would be immoral to consume illegal drugs.” Such a response is not only a classic Red Herring avoiding the proposition at hand, but also a socio-cultural consideration not necessarily related to the biblical question. Indeed, all one has to do to avoid its thrust is to suppose an actual and believable scenario in which marijuana for pleasurable purposes is legal, a scenario that may happen in the United States sooner than we realize.

If our laws eventually allow for such pleasurable usage of marijuana, upon what moral basis will the moderationist boldly stand and counsel their congregations to abstain from the pleasurable consumption of smoking pot? Would it not behoove those who have been faithfully taught moderation from their pastor to remind him that it is not the use of pot the Bible condemns but the abuse of pot the Bible condemns? Moreover, would they not rightly insist that only “tortured exegesis” could insist on abstinence from intoxicating substances like marijuana, which, in some important ways, has been demonstrated to be much less dangerous than even alcohol?

It seems, then, that moderation is clearly an inferior moral option for the Biblical Christian. And, if THE choices are either moderation or abstinence, abstinence remains the superior moral position for Christians to both practice and propose.

• Second, abstinence is thoroughly biblical. In fact, abstinence itself is as old as the human race. God instituted abstinence as the first moral imperative demanded of the human pair He had especially made in His own image (Genesis 2:17; 3:17; 1:26-27; 5:3). Clearly, the don’t-eat-don’t-touch structure of God’s moral expectation for human behavior echoes for us the ethical maxim of abstinence (Genesis 3:3). Imagine Eve arguing it was not the use of the fruit God had in mind but the abuse of the fruit. Indeed God’s clear command implied that usage itself defaulted to abuse. Nor is the moral trajectory of abstinence an exceptional principle in biblical norms. A casual consideration of the moral law recorded in the Ten Commandments verifies the undeniable thread of moral abstinence interwoven within Scripture (Exodus 20:1-17; see also Leviticus 11:1-47; Mark 7:18-19).

We might add that signs are rare, if any, that moderation as a moral principle appears in the biblical text. God commands the people to worship Him not moderately, but exclusively (Exodus 20:3). The yardstick by which moral behavior is always measured appears to us in the absolute, not the relative -- that is, in abstinence, not moderation.

As with both Eve (Genesis 3:3) and Israel (Leviticus 11:1-2) so similarly with our Lord, the occasion Satan first advances to challenge the Messiah tempts Him to deny abstinence and to indulge Himself (Luke 4:1-4). Indeed, when we consider what New Testament discipleship entails we immediately are confronted with the principle of abstinence. Our Lord on more occasions than one uttered the central hub of practicing the Jesus life: “Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Mark 8:34; Matt. 16:24; Luke 9:23).

According to Jesus, denying self is the bedrock spiritual demand to being His disciples. Indeed, our discipleship to Jesus and His Lordship remains an inward faith-vow, a definitive abstinence from our sinful, self-made lordship toward which we’ve so uncontrollably indulged our spiritual allegiance leaving but a darkened, empty hull behind. Jesus calls us to say yes to Him and no to all competition, again the principle to abstinence in play.

Even so, Jesus was carving out no self-made salvation in these Lordship sayings. Abstinence can no more save one than any other moral behavior we may perform. Being a disciple of Jesus does not begin with us; rather it begins with God’s free grace in justification, as we place our faith in the atoning work of Christ’s redemptive cross. Nevertheless, the grace of discipleship -- if it is truly God’s grace and not some antinomian counterfeit -- necessarily proceeds from justification into sanctification and ultimately glorification. Our faith in the Lord Jesus seals us to the Father and secures us as living, breathing disciples of Jesus. Consequently, as disciple -- true followers of Him -- through continued faith in the Lord Jesus and power from the indwelling Spirit, we flesh out biblical discipleship in holiness. The moral principle of abstinence remains crucial in doing so.

While the above represents only a survey of biblical revelation to demonstrate the biblical trajectory of moral abstinence, one may object why no specific texts are used which explicitly prohibit alcohol usage. Perhaps no question comes to the table more quickly and enthusiastically by moderation advocates than, “Where in the Bible does it say, ‘Thou shalt not drink wine?’” Indeed, some appear to think this question is the showstopper which shuts the debate down. However, on a number of levels this question is completely moot. Given what we know about the nature of “wine” on the pages of Scripture (part 2 in this series), one might as well ask, “Where in the Bible does it say, ‘Thou shalt not smoke marijuana’?”

The fact remains, there are many moral issues with which the contemporary Christian must wrestle which are not directly addressed by the Word of God. However, we must enthusiastically insist that all moral issues we face -- including issues not touched directly upon in Scripture -- are, at minimum, indirectly addressed by the Word of God. The moral position that since the Bible is silent on a matter (i.e. there is no direct proof text to quote) the behavior is permissible is frankly absurd for biblical Christians. It reduces the Bible to a revelation of God shackled in time and chained to the culture of a place far removed from us, offering little help to get through the maze of modern morality.

Nevertheless, we remain convinced that God’s Word transcends not only time but all cultural milieu which divides societies both ancient and modern. We further embrace that God guides His people through His inspired written Word as illuminated by the indwelling Holy Spirit, and does so both directly and indirectly, as we fulfill Christ’s call to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Him.

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

I don’t know what you think about Christians and the consumption of alcohol. Maybe you’re a Christian who thinks alcohol is the Devil’s brew and you’re uncomfortable with even sparkling grape juice because it looks too much like the real thing. Maybe you’re a Christian that has a sense that the general public thinks Christians ought not to drink, but you believe that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, as long as you don’t get drunk. Maybe you call yourself a Christian and you neatly separate your recreational drinking from your church attendance; when you drink you don’t talk about your church attendance and when you’re at church you don’t talk about your drinking. Maybe you’re not a Christian, but you really do wonder what Christians are supposed to think about drinking alcohol. With such diverse opinions the church struggles to give a consistent position on alcohol to the broader culture.

As I’ve stated in previous posts, we first have to differentiate between cultural Christianity and biblical Christianity. One of these days, I’ll devote a post to just this subject. However, let it suffice here to define the former as a version of Christianity that accommodates itself uncritically to the moral and ideological trends of its culture. The latter attempts to steer through its culture with a fidelity to the precepts and principles of the Bible, believing it to be the very Word of God.

I would like to attempt to address this issue of Christian drinking from the point of view of biblical Christianity. It is my hope that I can offer you a few thoughts to rethink the drink if you are a Christian who has inherited or become accustomed to the behavior of social drinking.

First, let’s just get it out that the Bible nowhere prohibits the consumption of alcohol or prescribes total abstinence for Christians. In addition, we are well familiar with the fact that Jesus’ first miracle of His ministry was turning water into wine - real wine. So, let’s look quickly at what the Bible actually says about alcohol.

In Proverbs we get strong warnings against indulging in alcohol.

Prov. 20:1 “Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, and whoever is intoxicated by it is not wise.”

Prov. 23:19-21 “Listen my son, and be wise, and direct your heart in the way. Do not be with heavy drinkers of wine, or with gluttonous eaters of meat. For the heavy drinker and the glutton will come to poverty and drowsiness will clothe a man with rags.”

Prov. 23:29-33 “Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has complaining? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes? Those who linger over wine, those who go to taste mixed wine. Do not look on the wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it goes down smoothly; at the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like a viper. Your eyes will see strange things, and your mind will utter perverse things.”

The Lord had strong words for drunk priests through His prophet Isaiah:

Isa. 28:7 “And these also reel with wine and stagger from strong drink: the priest and the prophet reel with strong drink; they are confused by wine, they stagger from strong drink; they reel while having visions, they totter when rendering judgment.”

In the New Testament we see similar warnings against excess.

Rom. 13:13 “Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness...”

1 Tim. 3:2-3 “An overseer, then must be above reproach ... not addicted to wine...”

Eph. 5:18 “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation [self-indulgence], but be filled with the Spirit.”

What we find in Scripture are strong warnings against the indulgence in alcohol and reaping the bad consequences of drunkenness. We can find examples of this, such as in the case with Noah and Lot. We do have examples of total abstinence, but these seem to be the exception, not the rule. In Numbers 6, we read about the special vow of the Nazarite – “to abstain from wine and strong drink.” We see the example of Daniel who refused the king’s wine and drank water. And we observe John the Baptist. The angel announced to his father Zacharias, “he will drink no wine and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit.”

So what are we to think about this topic as believers. Should we stand strongly against any consumption? Should we promote moderation? Maybe you’re wondering if we should care at all. Maybe it’s just not that important.

I believe this issue is a big deal for the church. I believe earnestly that Christians who drink need to rethink their habit. However, I believe we have to think about this issue correctly. We can’t just shout louder, we have to know biblically and persuasively why we shouldn’t drink. Two pieces of knowledge can guide us – one is historical and the other biblical.

First, we need to understand the history behind teetotalism that is the common perception among those in my Baptist denomination and many of our Protestant brothers. Second, we need to understand and apply an overarching biblical principle that will give us tremendous guidance on the issue.

The temperance movement of the early 1800s began as a movement against distilled liquors that created an unnatural, much higher alcohol content. The movement was not aimed at first at wine or beer. In the 1800s it has been said we were a nation of drunks. Christian women and preachers led the charge against strong drink, trying to get it regulated. As the movement grew in the century no one could deny the bad effects that alcohol was having on the culture, such as it’s influence in crime, domestic abuse and unproductiveness. Eventually this temperance movement grew into a prohibition movement that included all kinds of alcohol. In the late 1800s there was even a short-lived Prohibition Party that ran presidential candidates. The move to get rid of alcohol gained wide support. Ultimately, the US Congress passed the 18th Amendment that went into effect in January 1920. This prohibited “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors.” This was the law of the land until 1933, when it was repealed by the 21st Amendment.

Baptists and other groups joined the Temperance and the Prohibition movements. In the process we became teetotalers. We became convinced that in our culture that total abstinence was most appropriate for a faithful Christian lifestyle. A popular “church covenant” even included the topic. The Brown Covenant became popular in the 1830s, and continues to be the covenant that many churches use today. This is the historical explanation of why Baptists and others understand that Christians are not supposed to drink. But with this history gone from our memories, we have a hard time understanding the attitude. And frankly, many today find the attitude prudish and legalistic.

Now with all that said, let me be clear and plain. Even if you know the history of temperance and prohibition and even if you know the Bible does not say “thou shall not drink” but only warns of drunkenness and its consequences, I still believe that abstinence is the right Christian approach to alcohol in our culture because of a key and clear biblical principle that a mature Christian cannot ignore.

I am a 1 Corinthian 8 teetotaler. The context of what Paul tells the Corinthian believers has nothing to do with the consumption of alcohol. In context, he is addressing a problem of some believers being offended by other believers buying and eating meat that had been slaughtered and offered to idols in pagan ceremonies. The meat-eating Christians believed they were in no wrong, and Paul technically agrees with them. However, Paul’s greatest concern is for the offended Christians, whom he calls the “weaker” brothers whose consciences are violated. You might expect that Paul would simply tell the meat eaters to go ahead and teach the weaker brothers to think correctly. Surprisingly, Paul tells the meat eaters to sacrifice their own liberty for the sake of the weaker brothers who have taken offense. Why? Because the overarching concern was to avoid causing your brother to stumble and be the cause of dissension. In other words, I should care more about the other guy than my own liberty - a clear call to self denial.

Beyond this reason is a more sobering and compelling reason. Paul says that the cavalier Christian who disregards his “weaker” brother does not merely sin against his brother, but against Christ himself since Christ died for the weaker brother too. DO YOU HEAR THAT? That gets my attention.

What’s Paul’s conclusion? If eating a certain meat among certain folks causes him to be the reason of dissension, then he will gladly become a vegetarian. End of discussion! Herein lies our relevant biblical principle related to the question of drinking alcohol. If my drinking of alcohol becomes an offense and poor witness to others, then it seems that the Bible does indeed speak clearly to me. I shouldn’t do it. This is not legalism. This is liberty choosing to sacrifice itself for love of God and others.

Maybe your not convinced. Maybe you think this is an inappropriate application of the text. If so, I would encourage you to read it and meditate on it and see if God may reveal something to you that you hadn’t considered seriously before. I believe wholeheartedly that the principle that emerges from the context of 1 Corinthians 8 is absolutely clear and completely sufficient to give us needed spiritual guidance on the question of alcohol consumption. It remains to be seen if we will listen and obey.

To me the choice is clear. If you are a Christian who drinks in our culture, which tends to view Christian drinking as compromise, then you are arrogant and unloving when you understand this and do it anyway. Even though you see nothing biblically wrong with the social drink, you don’t care about the offense you are giving. You may indeed be correct that it constitutes no sin. But being right is not the point. Being obedient to God and loving your brother through your behavior is the point. But if this is your attitude, then ironically, in the end, you’re wrong. You hurt your own reputation, the reputation of your church, and you most grievously sin against Christ.

It’s time to rethink the drink. I can give you all kinds of practical reasons that a Christian ought not to drink (it’s addictive; it’s destructive; if you take one drink, there will probably be a time when you take too many drinks; it’s expensive; you’ll pass it to your children; you’ve got plenty of beverage options; you’ve got bigger problems if you need it to relax or have a good time, etc.). But the one biblical principle that God has given us in His Word ought to be all we need. If you are a Christian drinker, maybe it’s time to evaluate if the practice is congruent with who you want to be and the witness for Christ you should want to have. Maybe it’s time to rethink the drink.