RSS
Home
The Christian and alcoholic beverages
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
In 1986, Rev. Kenneth Gentry, pastor of Reedy River Presbyterian Church in South Carolina, published The Christian and Alcoholic Beverages, (Baker Books) a book that is as relevant today as it was 23 years ago. Arguing against two different forms of teetotalism, which he labels the "prohibitionist" and the "abstentionist",Gentry affirms the "moderationist" view, teaching that Christians are free to partake of alcohol, so long as they do not drink in excess.
In doing so, Gentry is clear that he is not endorsing the practice of drinking--he is merely saying everyone should make their own decision, and not be made to feel guilty from the outset when considering drinking moderately.
Clearly, this is an emotional topic, and it's hard to form an opinion on the matter without being influenced by one's emotions. The adult who was abused, or watched someone be abused, by an alcoholic parent can't be expected to have the same perspective on alcohol as the child who was raised in a happy, peaceful family full of moderate drinkers. The person who's lost a loved one due to a drunk driving accident can't be expected to have the same perspective as the person whose only experiences with alcohol have been pleasant. Gentry, in his approach, tries to be objective and "unemotional", but not in a negatively cold way.
1. Gentry's Case For Moderation, Rather Than Teetotalism
Showing his capacity as a soud Biblical scholar, Gentry attempts, every step along the way, to prove his case from Scripture, arguing from numerous Old Testament references which describe wine as a blessing from God to humanity, as well as New Testament references to Christ and his disciples drinking wine. Referring repeatedly back to the original languages, he demonstrates that the common charge of Biblical wine being unfermented grape juice is unfounded. Lastly, Gentry deals with the passages that are commonly cited as pro-teetoalism verses, showing that they are not mandating universal teetotalism, but only abstinence for certain people in certain circumstances (Nazirite vows, etc...)
Surprisingly, Gentry does keep his argument solely a matter of Biblical hermeneutics, rather than appealing to Church tradition. Had he looked for them, there certainly would have been no shortage of pro-alcohol saints in Church history that could've been referenced. Martin Luther, for example, had a drinking mug that had 10 lines across it, each one listing one of the commandments. He and his friends would joke about which of them could drink the furthest through the commandments.
C.S. Lewis was a lifelong lover of wine (and tobacco, another taboo for much of American evangelicalism). At one point, Lewis told a correspondent that teetotalism, besides being unbiblical, was too parochial, or "small town," failing to take into account the multitudes of cultures around the world (Europe, particularly) for whom moderate alcohol drinking is no social or moral more'.
In order to seal his argument, Gentry, after demonstrating that Biblical wine was most likely fermented, points to the fact that compulsory teetotalism would render one aspect of the life of Christ something that could not, in good conscience, be emulated. Such an attitude, Gentry says, would implicitly implicate Christ as having had moral flaws.
2. The Rationale For Abstaining
One finds it difficult argue with his Biblical reasoning in defending moderationism. However, this writer must confess that he does find plenty of merit in the "abstentionist" view--more merit than Gentry would concede. On p. 14, Gentry defines this view as teaching that "although alcoholic beverages are not expressly forbidden in Scripture as a matter of universal practice, alcohol consumption in our society is nevertheless imprudent and should not be condoned. This is due both to the moral-social context in which we live and the easy availability of alcoholic (distilled) beverages... In this view, abstinence is not a matter of 'law,' but of love. Thus it is to be voluntarily given up as a matter of prudence."
From this writer's opinion, it's hard to imagine a solid reason to begin drinking, and the absence of Biblical injunctions against drinking do not amount to providing incentive to drink. It's not a matter of morality as much as it's a matter of wisdom, caution. One couldn't accuse a person with a mild heart condition who frequently bunjee jumps of "sinning", but one could find several sound reasons for showing such an individual the potential danger in what he or she is doing. Roughly 11% of all drinkers will eventually become alcoholics, statistically speaking. Given the trauma that alcoholism results in, and given the fact that none of us know which of us will succumb to alcoholism if we begin drinking, it seems prudent to abstain altogether. All that being said, Gentry is right in demonstrating that the above mentioned opinion, while theoretically be a legitimate personal stance on the issue, is not the explicit Biblical stance.
3. The Problem of Alcoholism
The strongest area of disagreement that this writer has with Gentry is his articulation of alcoholism. While most Christians would, it seems fair to say, describe alcoholism as being as much, if not more, of a sickness than a sin, Gentry strongly disagrees.
"The notion that alcoholism is somehow a physiological defect is antithetical to the Biblical doctrine of sin and personal responsibility," he says. Gentry, in a somewhat harsh tone, points out that "chronic drunkenness" (which, apparently for him, is not distinguishable from alcoholism) is "a condition that effectively bars entrance into the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10)....There are people who have problems with alcohol--but the problem is due to moral failure, not physiological defect."
To say that alcholics are "moral failures" uncharitably overlooks the fact that there is a difference between a "drunkard", who willfully drinks to excess on a persistent basis, and an alcoholic, who longs to remain sober, but finds himself or herself chemically addicted and unable, without intervention, to quit drinking.
Conclusuion
Disagreements notwithstanding, all in all, Gentry successfully builds his case, showing that whether or not Christians choose to drink or not to drink is a matter of Christian liberty, and no individual or church has the right to bind another's conscience on this matter. Whatever one's personal take on this issue is, the book would be a beneficial read, motivating the reader to determine what he or she believes about alcohol and why.
