Capital T Total: Why Abstinence from Alcohol
A friend recently blogged on why abstinence from alcohol is unnecessarily and maybe even harmfully prohibitive.
So I thought I should explain in short order why Christians ought to abstain wholly from alcohol. For brevity, I am simply making the case. Those who wish to reply should actually respond to this argument rather than go around it. I believe this case is compatible with every scripture in the Bible about alcohol, from Proverbs 31:6-7 (oh yes, and 4-5 as well) to John 2:1-11.
While this argument is not exegetical, it is inspired exegetically. That is, Proverbs 23 makes the case that while “abuse” is the ultimate problem, its solution is total abstinence. In that chapter, verses 29-35 point out the nature of alcohol and dangers of its abuse. But verses 31 and 20 (above it) offer the solution, which is not to use it at all.
That presentation parallels this argument. Like many illicit drugs, the essential attributes of alcohol are its intrinsically (not simply subjectively psychologically) addictive, and directly mind-altering characteristics. Those characteristics are what lead to the Proverb’s point not simply to avoid drunkenness, but to avoid any drink at all, and even to avoid those who drink too much. That is, if the reason a substance is what-it-is is that it directly alters a mental state, and if it is in the nature of the substance itself that when it is consumed it is likely to produce an addiction–if both of those statements are true–then the substance ought to be avoided entirely. (There is no way to address it fully here, but no, food is not addictive in the same way, and no, caffeine is not mind-altering in the same, direct way.)
That argument is perfectly reasonable, but is not appealing to our culture in terms of alcohol. So let’s put it in morally equivalent terms which will fit our culture. There is no argument for the moderate consumption of alcohol which does not also justify the moderate consumption of marijuana–if it were legal. The essence of both substances is the same. People who use a little do not believe it impairs their ability to function–even though they are wrong in both cases, as plenty of studies have demonstrated. Neither actually has any redeeming qualities, although studies are constantly trying to demonstrate otherwise for alcohol (e.g., thins the blood and prevents heart attacks) and for marijuana (e.g., glaucoma treatment or pain therapy).
It is not helpful to point out that Jesus overcame the law. People regularly make the case that Jesus was not worried about drinking wine. By extension they reason what amounts to the idea that it would not have bothered Jesus to sit down for a beer with Zacchaeus. Now there are a whole host of problems with the naive stance against “legalism” being presented there. Jesus obeyed the law and modeled it. He did not commit adultery. He did not kill. So no statement about Jesus overcoming the law makes any difference in an argument about a behavior whose prohibited status is the subject of the debate. But for those who slip into that shoddy way of thinking I have this question: Do they seriously think Jesus would have sat down for a joint with his homies? (Astoundingly, there are some people who will answers “yes” to that question. But their theology and practice is so obviously wrong in our culture that I do not need to address it here for this point to have been made.)
This approach is not legalism. Legalism is advocating perfunctory obedience as sufficient for righteousness, which is ridiculous. Righteousness is a gift from God “by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.”
But discovering how God expects us to behave as disciples and living within those boundaries is liberating from sin. All believers have standards of holiness (or at least ought to) which they live out and believe and hope will draw their lost friends toward a loving Savior.
So here’s the short version: When a substance’s essential attributes are mind alteration and addiction, then the “use” of that substance is its own risky and dangerous form of “abuse.”
So use not, my friends. And stop encouraging a culture in which over 30% of the public have abused alcohol to tolerate it.
Doc, I see that you posted this, so I thought I would return the kindness and respond on your site! When reading Proverbs 23 I agree that the ultimate problem demonstrated is abuse of alcohol, but disagree about your remarks regarding not using at all. v. 20 clearly states, verbatim, ‘Do not be with heavy drinkers of wine’ (NASB) or ‘drunkards’ (ESV), but nothing about, ‘not using at all.’ Furthermore, v. 30 literally says, ‘Those who linger long over wine, Those who go to taste mixed wine.’ (NASB) Again, I don’t see this as communicating ‘not using at all’ rather, not being lured by, hence the NLT translates it ‘Don’t let the sparkle and smooth taste of wine deceive you.’
You also talk of alcohol’s addictive nature and say, ‘when it is consumed it is likely to produce an addiction’ but this is simply false. If we look at the number of people who use alcohol and even the number of people who abuse it (say, after a long week of work with a weekend of drunkenness) the number of users vs. addicts just doesn’t seem to support the statement that ‘when it is consumed it is LIKELY to produce an addiction’ even if it is possible to become addicted to it. You also say that it is a mind altering substance, which it can be- but not always and necessarily so. When we drink cough syrup the alcohol doesn’t alter our mind, so then it must be the amount consumed not simply consumption. There are a number of factors that help determine whether it will be mind-altering (which is shown by the behavior), such as how full one’s stomach is, etc. So, while you conclude that because it is likely to produce an addiction and because it is always mind-altering it ‘ought to be avoided entirely’, I conclude that that the two statements aren’t as straightforward as you present them to be.
Furthermore, I’m not sure what you mean by ‘ The essence of both substances is the same’ – they don’t produce the same physical effect, so you must mean similar behavioral outputs. But, here, I think, there is an equivocation of one’s intention to use. People don’t of their own will (outside of a doctor prescribing on someone else’s behalf) buy marijuana to smoke for any other reason, but to produce a mind-altering effect (to get high), but people often -and Christians I hope solely- buy for the taste or something like that- not just to get drunk.
I won’t point out that Jesus overcame the law, because I didn’t think that not drinking was a part of the law (outside of some sort of nazarite vow), but I could be wrong. When I read the Bible it seems clear that Jesus drank, I can’t get around it. Matthew 11:18-19: “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ “The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners …” Even if the accusers were wrong by calling him a drunkard and glutton it was Jesus, not the accusers, who said that ‘the Son of Man came eating and drinking’ and didn’t bother to say, ‘and it wasn’t the kind of drink my accusers said it was.’
So, in short, I don’t think that alcohol is the kind of substance that your argument says it is, and if Christians use it responsibly, won’t produce either of the effects you say are dangerous (mind-alteration/addiction). The intention of the user is not the same for all who use alcohol and all who use ‘drugs’ and the Bible seems to indicate that Jesus drank. Therefore, I just don’t find the abolitionist position convincing.
With all the respect in the world,
Joel
Yes. I decided to tidy up my comment a bit and make a regular case of it on my site. Thanks for the returned kindness!
I only disagree with you on four itsy-bitsy points:
1) Proverbs 23 is about abstinence. Of course Proverbs 23 repeatedly condemns drunkenness; it’s what motivates the rest of the passage. But there is no getting around verse 31, which is the whole point. Understanding it the way you read it makes Solomon’s point about prostitutes simply, “make sure you don’t let them kill you.” “A whore is a deep ditch” is a warning not to visit her to begin with. And in the same context he makes that point about wine. The deception of wine is your point. It doesn’t kill you till later, so go ahead and fool around with it where it’s not harmful. That’s why verse 31 says not to look at it when everything about it appears good and appealing.
2) You are either simply statistically wrong about alcohol’s addictiveness (since one-third of all Americans attest to having been alcoholic at some point in their lives–and then of avoiding treatment for about a decade) or you do not agree with me that a substance which produces that kind of statistic is significantly addictive. In fact, you disagree with Proverbs 31’s point in the last verse–which is the deceptive clincher for alcohol. It does all the other, mind-alteration and affliction, yet still convinces its servant to seek it again.
3) You are also mistaken regarding the minimal effects of imbibing. Repeated studies demonstrate just a small glass of wine reduces the speed with which a person reacts to stimuli by as much (or little, depending on the study) as one-third. The studies I’m referring to are about drinking and driving, and so were worded in terms of distance required to stop once a crisis emerged: 120 feet instead of 90 feet, and so on. The funny thing is, I hear pot users say exactly the same thing about a single joint–or one hit. The fact that alcohol is consumed even in minimal quantities to promote relaxation or a better conversation makes my point. And what possible difference does it make whether it’s in cough syrup or not–syrups which by the way add alcohol in order to relax the patient and promote sleep. In fact, as a T-totaller I’m in a much better position to judge the effects of single drinks at dinner parties as I watch the judgment of participants decline precipitously once the wine is dispensed–and believe me I have. Because despite the broad strokes painted against T-totallers, I am capable of interacting with people who “just don’t care” precisely because they don’t care that I’m not drinking.
4) Jesus’ point about coming “eating and drinking” is in contrast to John the Baptist’s coming fasting, not in response to John the Baptist coming as a T-totaller. There is no compelling evidence either way in the NT to say Jesus drank or did not. That it is a substance forbidden both by OT wisdom and by the impact of its abuse makes it obvious to me that Jesus did not drink alcohol as alcohol.
Ok, I guess it’s five.
5) The intention of the imbiber makes no difference whatsoever to my point. Obviously they’re not coming with the intent of being drunk–hence the deception. The intent to be drunk is a moral non-starter. So I don’t care whether they like the taste, the blood-thinning, the cultural adult-ness, or are just too weak to resist peer pressure, the problem is the same. (ok, I should have subsumed this under number 1 and kept it at 4.)
In closing, I only want to remind you–or any accidental readers–that I originally replied only to some comments to your post. I think most of your critique of the original CTR article was fair enough because you limited your claims to what the authors of that article had not demonstrated. And so with fond affection: again, thanks for the discourse.
Thanks Doc. I still consider you my teacher, but I just disagree.
After reading (2) I wonder, again, whether you can actually conclude that it is ‘likely’ to produce an addiction? All you can actually say is that 1/3 were addicts, which could simply mean that they abused it so much that it did become an addiction, but, again, saying that drinking (of any shape or form, I assume- ’socially’), will ‘likely’ lead to addiction, just seems a little far fetched. I decided to check out the statistics in the UK, since drinking is such a major part of this culture, and the ONS (Office for National Statistics), a government branch, said in 1998 (just the one I found via google) there were:
-40 million social drinkers
-10 million “at risk” drinkers (drinking over the sensible limit)
-1 million problem drinkers (When physical, psychological or social harm occurs through drinking)
-200,000 dependent drinkers (addicted- withdraw syptoms, etc.)
If drinking alcohol is likely to cause addiction then it seems that there would be more than 0.5% of overall drinkers with a status of ‘dependent’ especially given that there are 1 million ‘problem drinkers’.
Regarding (4) Jesus point is not just about contrasting John the Baptist’s fasting, but also his not drinking -and surely we can’t conclude that he was being contrasted with the fact that John the Baptist didn’t drink anything at all (like water), but that he didn’t drink a certain kind of drink, namely wine.
Was listening to the radio ever so briefly on my way home from work and heard you, Barry, cite this blog entry you wrote on the subject. I had to look it up and see what your strong argument was for total abstinence from alcohol. Your arguments, however, seem weak to me… I grew up in all sorts of denominations – my mom and I switched churches almost every year, from Methodist to Nazarene to Assemblies of God to Southern Baptist. Most of my spiritual maturing happened during the 4 years I attended an Independent (Fundamental King-James-only) Baptist church, and I have spent the last 2½ yrs in a Bible church (nondenominational). My mom has never had a drink in front of me. My father drinks beer. My stepfather believes it’s wrong, my peers believe it’s okay. With all these mixed opinions in my life, I’ve had to form my own opinion on the matter.
First, your passages in Proverbs. I agree with Joel on this, and I can’t say it any better than he did. I see only that the Bible warns against abuse and over-use. I don’t see anywhere that it says not to use it at all. 23:31 is the closest to that, but even that is questionable to me, and if it’s the only argument for total abstinence in the Bible it makes me wonder if you’re reading it correctly. The Bible usually consistently shows the same message, and taking one instance of something to base a whole doctrine on is kind of like taking it out of context.
On the contrary (to your argument) I see many places in the Bible where wine drinking is spoken of in a positive light. At least three or four places in Ecclesiastes (9:7, 9:10, 10:19, 31:35) say something along the lines of wine making one merry or joyful. My Bible study group spent about six months studying the book of Ecclesiastes, and you couldn’t help but come away with the idea that he is pro-alcohol. Not pro-alcohol-abuse, but definitely pro-alcohol.
In Proverbs 31 which even you mention, it seems to endorse wine for taking away your sorrows. It seems to say, and I agree, that there are times when this is appropriate.
Psalm 104 references wine which gladdens the heart of man. Song of Soloman has positive comparisons to wine. In I Timothy, the reader is advised to drink a little wine (regardless of the reason, the fact is still there – you yourself said that the REASON behind the behavior does not really matter).
Jesus’ first miracle – the turning of water into wine.. speaks pretty strongly against your argument. Really? You think Jesus was going to create something as his first miracle that he believes is wrong and wouldn’t drink himself? “Here’s some wine, but you really shouldn’t drink it.” Even I knew better than that as a pre-teen, when I was convinced some of the music I was listening to was no good for me. I didn’t give the CDs to my friend, as she requested. Rather, I scratched up and broke the CDs and threw them away. Jesus wouldn’t do that – it wouldn’t make sense. Besides, I think there is plenty of reason to believe Jesus DID drink wine, given the passages in Luke as well as in Matthew when it tells the story of the last supper.
I don’t believe alcohol is “necessarily addictive.” Can be, often is, but is not always. I do believe that it is very frequently abused, and my standards for that are probably higher than most. But even if one third of our population claims to be or have been an addict, that does not make its addictiveness a fact. That statistic says nothing of what percentage of the population drinks to begin with, and as someone interested in studying human behavior and psychology I think that may say more about the people than the substance. You can become addicted to almost anything, and in everything you must use moderation. Not an overrated sentiment….
I’m not responding to this simply to be argumentative. I just genuinely wanted to see what your logic was and wanted to put in my two cents about it. I wish I could find a link to Joel’s original post that this was a response to because I’m interested in reading that as well.
[...] which is completely compatible with Jack’s, is in my post from last year entitled, “Capital T-Total: Why Abstinence from Alcohol.” Jack’s argument is immediately below, ending with a list of the passages he [...]
Dr. Creamer-
I don’t see how you can interpret Proverbs 23:31 the way you do. The verse does not simply say “Do not (drink) look at wine.” Period, end of sentence. It says “WHEN it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly.” It seems to me that the author is trying to warn against drinking when the alcohol content is high. This fits the overall context of the chapter much better. Is there something about the culture for which this was written or the Hebrew behind it that I don’t see? Someone please enlighten me, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills! By the way, I think it is best not to consume alcohol as well, I just don’t think it is Biblical. Jesus certainly approved of it at the wedding of Cana. Paul told Timothy to drink wine. What am I missing!?
At the wedding in Cana, Jesus makes wine. While you argue that Scripture does not state that Jesus drank wine, it doesn’t seem much better that he would make it. As a t-totaler, your argument, if valid, would mean the consumption of alcohol is a sin for all, not just the t-totaling Christians. Afterall, truth is not relative.
Although, I recall an argument against the consumption of alcohol that was dependent upon one’s culture.
In short, how do you reconcile the perceived conflict between (1) The consumption of alcohol is a sin; and (2) Jesus made (really good) wine from water at the wedding in Cana for the party goers to consume?
Thanks for your continued inroads into my comfortable paradigms and challenging my assumptions.
With much respect,
Jesse
Jesse,
I think you answered your own question. Obviously I believe that Jesus made wine which could not intoxicate anyone.
My question, not to you but to everyone who believes He made potentially intoxicating wine, is this:
You surely believe drunkenness is sinful. You believe that Jesus making wine is evidence that drinking intoxicating beverages is permissible. But these people, based on arguments I hear from your side, were surely either already drunk (because they were at the end of a feast when the man could serve cheap wine and they wouldn’t notice—by your reasoning, that is) or getting drunk. So Jesus did not give them a little wine for their stomach’s sake, or a little drink for the flavor, but more (and a LOT more, based on the text) of the mind-altering substance which had already altered their minds.
So, the question: shouldn’t the conclusion of your argument be that it’s ok to be drunk, rather than simply that it’s ok to drink?
Nope. Cana just isn’t going to change my mind. And, by the way, I’ll repeat what I said elsewhere: there’s exactly one extended and prescriptive passage in the Bible dealing with whether a person ought to drink alcohol: the end of Proverbs 23. It’s conclusion, despite the deliberate obfuscation of people who just don’t want to see it is that the way to avoid the drunkenness and addiction that make alcohol painful is to avoid it completely. It’s a very simple passage. To USE a drug recreationally IS to ABUSE the drug, whether it’s alcohol or marijuana (or…)