Dear ______,
This is a good question. Let me summarize some of the Bible’s teaching on the use and abuse of alcohol to help you to navigate your way through the party culture at college! I’ll start with two important points.
Firstly, there’s nothing wrong with alcohol in and of itself. God made alcohol to make us feel better (check out Psalm 104:15). Jesus himself turned water into wine (John 2:1-11), drank it himself (e.g. Matt 26:27-29) and used it positively in illustrations (e.g. Mark 2:22).
But secondly, the Bible always condemns drunkenness—that is, excessive drinking to the point of losing self-control. There’s lots of Bible verses for this one: Romans 13:13, 1 Corinthians 6:10, Ephesians 5:18, 1 Peter 4:3, and so on. So it is definitely a sin to get drunk. In fact, the verses I cited all have to do with drunkenness in the context of a ‘party’ culture. Christians are not to do what the world around us does; we are not to get drunk even if others are doing it. Why? 1 Peter has an explanation:
Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in his body is done with sin. As a result, he does not live the rest of his earthly life for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you. But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. (1 Pet 4:1-5 NIV)
This gives us a hint as to why drunkenness is wrong. Drunkenness is consistently condemned in the Bible because it robs us of the ability to act responsibly and soberly for the sake of others. Human beings are created in God’s image in order to rule the creation (Gen 1:26)—to live as God’s agents with the responsibility to care for the world and for others. But drunkenness stops us from doing this properly. It prevents us from thinking clearly, and from being able to act in love. It increases our propensity to speak or act in ways that are selfish, unguarded and irresponsible. Noah, the first person in the Bible who was recorded as getting drunk (Gen 9:21), did such a thing, sinning and causing his son to sin.
Proverbs 23 describes this process of drunkenness robbing us of self-control in graphic detail:
Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaints? Who has needless bruises? Who has bloodshot eyes? 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?” (Prov 23:29-35 NIV)
And Proverbs 30 gives advice to kings about not getting drunk:
It is not for kings, O Lemuel—not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer, lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights. Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish; let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more. “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” (Prov 31:4-9 NIV)
The problem with getting drunk is that it stops people from exercising self-control, and from being responsible. This is why kings, in particular, should not get drunk (see also, for example, Isa 5:11, 28:1-8). It’s kind of ‘okay’ for people with a hopeless life, who are destined for judgment and destruction, to get drunk; after all, they have no real responsibility—they’re already condemned and sinful—so why not get drunk (Isa 22:13, 1 Cor 15:32)? But anyone with God-given responsibility (e.g. kings) should avoid getting drunk at all costs. That’s why Christian leaders, in particular, must not be open to the charge of drunkenness (e.g. Titus 1:7, 2:3).
But does that mean that it’s okay for a Christian to get drunk, as long as they’re not a leader and have no responsibility? Well, the Bible teaches that all Christians have a great responsibility. We have God’s Spirit, who brings us salvation from destruction, gives us a sure hope of eternal life, makes us sons and reforms us as heirs of God (Gal 3:29, Rom 8:17). That means we look forward to an inheritance. It also means we have the responsibility as sons to do what is right. That’s why the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Gal 5:22-23)—all things that are about living responsibly for the sake of others, and all things that drunkenness inhibits (see the previous verses, especially Galatians 5:21). And that’s why the ‘spirit’ of drunkenness is the polar opposite of the Spirit of God (Eph 5:18).
Hence the greatest witness to the hope of everlasting life amongst our party-oriented society is to avoid drunkenness at all costs.
Thanks for the post Lionel – a great answer to an issue which almost every young person in our culture will have to deal with on a weekly basis. I especially apprectiated the biblical-theological manner in which you dealt with the question – not just looking towards the commands which the NT issues, but showing how these are the natural outcome of the teaching of the scriptures regarding responsibility.
However, within this framework, I was surprised to read that “It’s kind of ‘okay’ for people with a hopeless life, who are destined for judgment and destruction, to get drunk; after all, they have no real responsibility”. Of course it’s understandable that non-Christians get drunk – they are demonstrating their true nature as those enslaved to sinful desires. But I can’t see how that it makes it in anyway ‘kind of ‘okay’‘?
It seems from the Isaiah reference that in the light of the immanent judgment that the response should not be abandon and drunkeness, but repentence (Isa 22:12). In the case of the Corinthians, while lack of hope is clearly present (15:32), the reason for drunkeness is not judgment, but the perceived lack of it (‘if the dead are not raised…’). More fundamentally within the BT framework, all humans as creatures within God’s world have the responsibility to care for it (not just those whom God has already redeemed) – a responsibility which you helpfully showed was compromised by drunkeness. But wouldn’t that mean that all should avoid drunkeness, even if it is understandable why some don’t?
Hi Dan – you’re perfectly right. In using that phrase I was trying to be ironic, but perhaps I was just a little too subtle. Sorry for the misunderstanding!
Dan I take it that its more about empathy for the hopeless who get drunk than endorsement of it.
I’m sure Lionel would agree that drunkards will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 cor 6:10) , like all sinners there must be genuine repentance – a taking of reponsibility which must imply self control.
I would love to hear more on absolutising abstinence out of the kind of principles you have argued here. it seems very easy to move into a culture where drinking (not drunkenness) is avoided at all costs. We can easily begin to look down on anyone with a beer in their as week and ill disciplined and unspiritual. And the yeast of the pharisees spreads.
I love Luthers comment
” I opposed indulgences and all the papists, but never with force. I simply preached, and wrote God’s Word; otherwise I did nothing. And while I slept, or drank Wittenberg beer with my friends Philip and Amsdorf, the Word so greatly weakened the papacy that no prince or emperor ever inflicted such losses upon it. I did nothing; the Word did everything. (LW 51:77).
and this one
“Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused. Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women? The sun, the moon, and the stars have been worshiped. Shall we then pluck them out of the sky?”
thanks for the reminder Lionel that it takes disciple and discernment to follow the one accused of being a glutton and drunkard, the friend of tax colllectors and sinners.
In my observation (as a 20 year old guy), drinking to excess is the single biggest issue facing Christians transitioning from teenhood into adulthood. I would say it is the one thing which drags more people away from church than anything else – especially young Christian men.
I like Lionel’s post here because you show how drunkeness is not only sinful but wrecks life.
I think it is an issue which needs regular airplay in the pulpit. It would also be great if Matthias Media put out a DVD series on this for Bible studies.
dang.
There goes one of my favourite (mis)quotes – Eph 5:18:
“And don’t get drunk with wine, but be filled with spirits”
(you perhaps want to read the passage yourself to see the misquote)
Mike
Hi Lionel,
Of late I have heard a Christian leader whom I greatly respect as a faithful Bible teacher encouraging abstinence from all forms of alcohol consumption (while still confirming that it’s not a sin, and is a gift from God).
Do you think there is a danger of an overemphasis on abstinence at the cost of receiving God’s good gift with thanksgiving? If we encourage complete abstinence amongst our congregation (as opposed to [for lack of a better term] contextual abstinence such as for legal reasons such as underage drinking/DUI and instances where you are causing a brother to stumble such as drinking in front of a known alcoholic) are we straying from God’s word?
Dear Izaac, From the sound of it, the Christian teacher you heard is doing exactly the right thing. He doesn’t want to deny that we are free, but he is urging people along a particular course of action in godly Christian wisdom.
I think Paul does the same kind of thing in 1 Corinthians 8-10 w.r.t. the eating of idol meat. After his summary (8:1-3), he begins by asserting that we are perfectly free to eat idol meat if we want (8:4-6). But by the end of his argument, he is urging people not to engage in idolatry, for the sake of Christian love and fellowship. His ultimate overarching principle is not individual freedom, but love for our brothers “for whom Christ died”.
W.r.t. alcohol – yes, we must not deny that we are free to drink it. If we do, we are straying from God’s word. But I can certainly understand the point of view of the Christian leader you mentioned, especially in 21st century Australia. As I continue in life and ministry, I see more and more people whose lives have been messed up and destroyed by alcohol abuse, and I see the terrible financial hold that the alcohol industry has over our government leaders. Abstaining from alcohol as a form of protest against the abuse of millions in our society could well be a better Christian witness than having a few beers to show that you’re not a wowser.
At the same time, I’ve seen great gospel inroads made with things like the Pub Church in Neutral Bay, and there are great people out there who have had great evangelistic conversations over a glass or two of beer.
Provided we are not getting drunk, there are no clear-cut easy answers to this one! It’s a matter of exercising our God given responsibility as heirs of eternal life in love for others.
I have also heard abstinance encouraged recently – but mostly as a social critique. That is because it is seen by many as one of the biggest issue facing people today, if we don’t drink we will be in stark contrast and show that drunkeness is bad.
While I do see some value in this, I think that it could also have a number of negative implication including those that you have mentioned Izaac.
I am inlcined to think that Christians need to be challenged to think about their attitude to alcohol and to thing through how they can best glorify God in the way they drink or not drink in each context. A blanket policy is often unhelpful, but a godly understanding of the importance of the way we live is essential.
Lionel said ” At the same time, I’ve seen great gospel inroads made with things like the Pub Church in Neutral Bay, and there are great people out there who have had great evangelistic conversations over a glass or two of beer.”
come on Lionel, this seems like a bet each way in the name of evangelistic pragmatism, like its wrong to use our freedoms in this beer drenched culture but at least people are getting saved!
I understand what you mean by being hesitant in blanket policy and clear contextual thinking.
but this is quite a pickle!
david ould is the guy sinking brews for Jesus and he is linked on this blog as a friend , and Phillip Jensen is pretty teetotal on alchohol – and a hero in some discerning circles.
so who is right. surely the distance between Town Hall and Neutral Bay is not a contextual one. are they that culturally divergent? is no common policy possible in two men who seem to be so theologically, missionally and even structurally aligned?
Is our mate Ouldie a glutton and a drunkard or is Philipp being pharisaical?!
I think you would agree that answer is neither- they are both free to serve ACCORDING TO CONSCIENCE. (to bind someone against conscience e.g you should not drink ever, seems problematic)
this is a wonderful example of the importance of theologically sound contextual interpretation ofscripture- something so essential yet seemingly lacking in much missional thinking, or as 1 cor 9:22 puts it
I have become all things to all people that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel…
it is a tough job with those uncomfortable grey areas of “try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved. ”
Thanks Lionel, Kester and Shane,
Further questions are raised in my mind in response to your answers.
1. Is 1 Cor 8-10 best to be taken as speaking to a societal context or that of an individual? Are we limiting our freedom for the sake of someone who would be aware or witnessing an action (so I won’t knowingly offer wine to a person that is compelled by conscience not to drink, or likewise a person with a known alcohol problem) or rather because society has a problem we should abstain for the benefits of some person I may be possibly offending or harming, whom I don’t know somewhere ‘out there’?
2. If it is wise to abstain in a society where there is such a thing as drunkenness are we at risk of portraying Jesus as unwise? I’ve been informed that 1st century Israel was quite a controlled society, but there was at the very least a word for drunk, drunkenness and drunkard, so there was at least some issue with excessive alcohol consumption. Should Jesus have more wisely have turned the water into ‘Maison’?
There is some wisdom in the historical position of evangelicals when seeing something done incorrectly to do the opposite. E.g. In seeing money spoken of unbiblically, we just don’t talk about money. Rather is there greater wisdom by instead doing it rightly?
Izaac just a wquick one about your ‘maison’ comment:
I’ve actually read an argument by a tee-total southern Baptist pastor which claimed that most positive references to wine in the Bible were about so called “new wine” or non alcoholic grape juice – this is what Jesus drank, infact what he created in Cana (jn 2) etc.
I was wholy unconvinced – but it shows to what extent some people are willing to change their reading of the Bible because of the sensitivity of the issue. This pastor had his view, but found Biblical texts problematic… answer change what ‘oinos (wine) means; No problem.
Hi Shane – I agree with pretty much everything you said except for your rather unsympathetic reading of my position
I’m quite comfortable to accept the possibility of there being no common policy on matters of freedom, especially in this one where the “policy” itself relies quite heavily on each teacher’s reading of the prevailing Aussie culture and what’s best in possibly different situations.
I would say I am very sympathetic to your position as long as it is just that. It maybe be muddleheaded on my part but I think a position is different to policy. There are in fact alchohol policies within place from last century regading use of alchohol on Anglican church property I believe.
I may sound like a civil libertarian but my concern is that we must be extremely careful not to arbitrate on matters of conscience, paticularly when the expression or restriction of freedom (for the sake of the gospel and others salvation) seems to hang so much on a right missiological reading of the context, as you have affirmed.
What I am still not clear ok in my own thinking is where grey freedom and conscience issues become more black and white- obedience and disobedience matters, I guess drunkenness is clearly one. Ie whilst I don’t think I have the liberty to say drinking beer is wrong, I do have the clear scriptural guidance to say if you are an unrepentant drunk then there’s no place for you in the kingdom, so flee!
Thanks for your careful gracious thoughts!
Thanks for the plug for Pub Church!
We’re always on tricky ground with any subject like this. My thinking wants to hold up Christian freedom and responsibility at the same time.
Shane asks the right question: where do we move from position to policy? I would say that we tell our youngg Christians (those that Lionel was originally addressing) that they are free to drink but that God in Scripture calls them to moderation.
But we also remind them they are under an obligation of love to submit their own freedom for the sake of their weaker brothers.
So the question is not so much “what is permitted” (so similar to the “how far can I go?” question) but “what is most beneficial for my godliness and that of those around me?”
That, I suggest, takes discernment and submission which is what we are, ultimately, seeking to teach those in our charge.