In which our regular writers toss around
subjects a little more volatile than usual.
Everybody’s favorite political football Bristol Palin has written a column on the subject
of the Guinness Beer Company and its Christian origins.
Tom: This is not the first time I’ve come across
this story, Immanuel Can. In another generation, a Christian brewer turns out
to have been the voice of moderation and societal self control. But in some
evangelical circles today, Arthur Guinness would be taken to task for corrupting the
faithful. I mean, he sold alcohol for a living!
Is there a less cartoonish and more biblical position to be taken on the subject of
alcohol consumption, IC?
Not So Asked-and-Answered Anymore
Immanuel Can: Hmm. Tricky subject. If you look around the Internet,
a lot of articles on Christians and alcohol are focused on questions like, “Can
Christians drink?” That’s an old one, and pretty much an asked-and-answered
one. The alcohol advocates hold their position, and the anti-alcohol people
hold theirs, and there’s little movement on the record. The general assumption
is that conservatives don’t drink, and more liberal churches allow it.
But that general assumption isn’t true now, if it ever was. It seems that for better or worse, alcohol consumption is now
thinkable, even in historically conservative groups. In fact, I know a Baptist
pastor who posts his favorite barley beverage on his Facebook page. His
congregation doesn’t blink. I think that twenty — or perhaps even
ten — years ago, he’d probably have been sent packing on a rail.
Tom: The question obviously arises: Were they right then, or are they
right now? Do we need to go through the scriptural motions?
The Strongest Case Against
IC: Well, let’s take a quick pass through. I don’t think we need to dwell long, because the relevant
scriptures are well-known. But I’m going to jump right to the passage
that, to me, makes the strongest against case. I would say that’s
Romans 14:20-21.
Tom: Right. So consuming alcohol in a way that causes your fellow believer to sin is wrong. I don’t think we’ll fight about that. And really, I don’t think it’s a huge
problem. It’s not like the pro-alcohol forces are up in the pulpits en masse saying, “Hey, you should
all enjoy a craft beer or a glass of vino with me.” If your Baptist barley fan
has a problem, it’s not that he enjoys the occasional pint, it’s that he
encourages others to do so who may have self-control issues.
IC: Yes. And for me, that’s a reason not to post your preferences, even
if you do drink. I know brothers in Christ who have escaped addiction. As they
say at AA, if you’re an alcoholic once, you are always potentially an
alcoholic; no amount is safe. For me,
that would not only be a reason not to advocate drinking in public, but even to
choose to serve non-alcoholic juice at the Lord’s Supper. It’s just not worth
the risk, and we mustn’t destroy the Lord’s people for the sake of food and drink.
Between Yourself and God
Tom: Agreed. There’s probably a whole social media issue that extends
far beyond one’s preferences about alcohol consumption that we could get lost
in if we wanted to. But it should be clear that whatever you or I may think
about having a drink, promoting that view can be tremendously destructive.
There’s a reason, I think, that Paul says, “The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God.”
What exactly would be the conceivable value of convincing another believer that it’s okay to have a drink or two?
IC: None I can see. However, in fairness, there are a lot of professing
Christians today who are quite enthused about the issue. There’s a sort of
cachet to the idea that a church can meet in a bar, which some actually do.
There’s a sort of exuberance in that liberty, but not much thought for weaker
brethren and sisters-in-Christ.
The Church in the Pig ’n Whistle
Tom: I see what you’re saying, but only because you sent me the link. I had no idea this was a thing. To be honest, I don’t have a problem with
Christians who have a lot of self-control sharing a drink or two with
unbelievers in a responsible way or letting the waiter pour them a glass of
wine at a wedding reception. Provided those you are with are not so plastered
they don’t remember your conversation the next day, and provided you’re not
embarrassing yourself and your faith by pounding back the pints and passing out
on the bar yourself, I don’t really take issue with Christians reaching out
like that, though I recognize there’s plenty of potential danger involved, and
not all Christians could pull it off.
But really … having a church meeting in a bar?
IC: Yes. For some, it’s almost a point a pride, a personal “Declaration
of Independence”. An odd way to think, I think. But maybe their reaction is the
backlash of many years of too many rules and not enough exercise of
discernment. When the rules fall, it might feel like liberation. Unfortunately, discernment only comes with
exercise, so the collapse of a legal requirement tends to leave nothing behind
by way of good judgment.
From One Century to Another
Tom: Now, in another culture and another time maybe I could see that.
Stephen Mansfield indicates that in Arthur Guinness’ day, water was so polluted it was
undrinkable. In England in the 1700s, having a pint with your supper was the
safer, more responsible, lower-alcohol option. So you’d have monks brewing
beer, Christians brewing beer. It was socially acceptable and not an indicator
that you were dissolute and out of control. But we’re not living in the 1700s
today, and there are plenty of options. Nobody has to drink of necessity. And as you say, for some people, the
risk of temptation is way too great.
IC: Yes, that’s true. The Guinness Company was actually founded by a forefather of the apologist Os
Guinness, apparently. And it seems one of the Guinness ancestors paid
restoration costs at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Dublin, where there is a
stained-glass window depicting Rebecca at the well, with the inscription “I was
thirsty, and ye gave me drink.” All of this history doesn’t make drinking
“Christian” anymore than the decision not to drink makes one
a Christian.
Tom: Quite. I’m just saying that question of what is right for you in your circumstances or me in
mine is not to be answered by the creation of some general rule of thumb. What is
right in one time and place and for one person may be wrong for another, or for the same person in another situation.
Rules vs. Discernment
IC: Right. What I’m advocating here is not rules one way or the other, but rather discernment of
the circumstances and the will of God for the individual. I would argue we
have neither a complete prohibition of alcohol in scripture, nor a free license
to drink openly and recklessly, but a situation for good judgment. It is not
always possible to prescribe good judgment in advance, or in the absence of
knowledge of local circumstances. And it is not desirable. For to provide us such
discernment is up to the general parameters scripture itself lays out, plus the
practical understanding of the right principle through the Spirit of God. To
force closure on a question upon which the scriptures themselves do not close
would be mere legalism either way.
Tom: “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” It’s the motive that matters.
Define “Weaker”
But as long as we’re on the subject of stumbling the weaker brother (and I’m thinking particularly here of
1 Corinthians 8), who is this “weak person” Paul is speaking of? Is
it everyone who takes a different view — in this case about whether a
fellow believer should or should not drink?
IC: I don’t think so, and I’ll tell you why. It’s because while a Christian must always put the
needs of a genuinely weaker Christian before his own, he is also the sworn adversary
of legalism. The book of Galatians would never have been written if
legalism and holiness were compatible. The right of individual
Christians — and indeed, their responsibility — to learn to discern
through the Spirit is truly sacred. Legalism destroys that.
As Paul asks,
“Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” By the way, the anticipated answer is “No”.
Tom: Agreed. I don’t think the legalist is “weak” in the sense Paul is referring to (although his
understanding of the difference between law and grace may need work). The “weak
person” Paul is talking about is the sort who might follow your example and
have a drink and be led into sin by it, something that poses no danger to the legalist, who takes pride in the fact
that he would never touch the stuff.
But I ask because while older Christians of a legalistic bent are generally quite
comfortable expressing their concern about the perceived sins of their fellow
believers, the genuinely “weak” person may not say anything at all, while still
being deeply affected by our example. So what I’m saying, I guess, is that we
need to be conscious that we’re being observed and that what we choose to do
with our freedom may have consequences.
IC: Now, that’s the truth ... and well worth pointing out.
Looking for the Silver Lining
Tom: If alcohol consumption is becoming increasingly acceptable among
evangelicals, there might be a silver lining in that cloud, and that is
this: If you bother to ask me why I just politely turned down your offer of a
drink, fifty years ago the answer “Because I’m a Christian” would probably have
ended the conversation. But if lots of Christians drink, and if you are the
curious sort, a mere platitude won’t do it anymore. My answer is going to have
to be a lot more honest, detailed and personal. It might even make me
vulnerable (“Before I knew the Lord, I had a real drinking problem”, or whatever).
I have trouble seeing that sort of real-world, personal Christian testimony as a bad thing.
IC: No, it’s not bad at all. And in fact, if a strict prohibition
against all forms of imbibing any alcohol is not part of scripture, then the
answer “I’m a Christian” was actually never really an answer at all. Rather, it
was misleading as to what being a Christian really means. It reminds me of
those older folks who used to think that a thing like wearing of makeup was a
deal-breaker; there was something terribly wrong with their understanding
of salvation.
Tom: We have such a tendency to try to resolve these questions by making
hard and fast rules, but Paul reminds the Galatians that in Christ Jesus what counts is
“faith working through love”. And in Romans, “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore
love is the fulfilling of the law.” If we can keep that perspective on things, we shouldn’t have any problem with
the question of what to drink and when to drink it.
Thanks for sharing, well said. Very relevant topic these days, particularly with our youth. When it comes to these topics and questions, I am always reminded of question from an youth group speaker of years gone by when he said, "The question you should be asking isn't what's wrong with it, as in how close to the edge can I get, but what's right with it and does it bring me closer to the Lord."
ReplyDeleteDo you feel that's a fair question, or does it just set you up for someone to say, "well, you could make that argument about anything you choose to do or not."
The question is asking something like what Paul is implicitly asking in 1 Corinthians 10: Does it edify? The apostle argues that all things are permissible, but not all things are profitable.
ReplyDeleteSo is it a fair question? Sure. Does it sound like an intimidating prospect to try to put it into practice? Definitely.