methodist's view on alcohol

[lucaspa]

I thought you were joking when you said that before. What is your source(s) for suggesting that one was expected to get drunk?

My professor when I was taking the course Jesus Christ and His Interpretors in college. But you can find it lots of places on the web. During the Middle Ages Jews would separate men and women during the wedding celebration because there was so much drinking expected that they were afraid of inappropriate sex:

"wedding celebrations were conducted during the Middle Ages. Given the drinking of wine as a key element of the celebration, it was deemed best to segregate the sexes at the same time. The Jewish community has always had a great concern about being certain of patrimony, and so it didn't want to have men and women in close physical contact (i.e. dancing together) while they were simultaneously drinking alcohol" Jewish Tradition

A traditional wedding party (if the groom's father could afford it) lasted several days. Lots of time for some serious drinking.

"Jewish Weddings B.C.E.

The Ceremony: Before a wedding ceremony, there were seven days of celebration. Their wedding was usually held outdoors. Then, after the wedding, there were more festivities, known as the “Seven days of feast”.
History of Jewish Weddings: A Look at Weddings from Before Common Era to the 19th Century

Look at the quantity of wine Jesus made for the wedding. ​

 

[dies-l]

I am confident you will find that responsible drinking is the norm. You sound like you have not been hanging out in the norm. I will bet you will find most members of any particular Methodist Church are responsible drinkers.



Alcohol is a a drug. We tend to forget that because it is legal.

What you need to do is compare the number of social and responsible drinkers (even ones who occasionally get drunk) with the number of people in prison.

I think what you are going to find is that, while 75% of people in prison have a problem with drugs (including alcohol), less than 1% of the total number of people who drink do. So most people are going to be like that group of pastors. Even people who like to actively be drunk still use alcohol respsonsibly in that they get drunk in controlled situations and do not do so frequently.

I would like to see data on the number of alcoholics in France and the number of people in French prisons who are there because alcohol was related to their crimes. The French do drink wine like we drink soft drinks. Children are brought up in households where a glass of wine a day is the norm. I wonder if this makes a difference.



Oh no. You don't want to go back. The side effects were more than the cost we are paying today.

It sounds like you are saying that drinking is "responsible" so long as it doesn't result in criminal activity. I would disagree with the idea that we can measure how many people drink responsibly, based on the percentage of drinkers who are convicted of crimes. For example, I would say that it is irresponsible to spend money on booze instead of paying for the needs of one's family (even though it is not necessarily a crime to fail to adequately support one's family). I would also argue that it is irresponsible to drink so much that one damages one's liver or other vital organs. Likewise, it is irresponsible, imo, to drink to the point of blackout. It is irresponsible to drink so much that it damages one's relationships with others. And so on.

I do agree that most people who drink do so responsibly. I would also wager that the majority of alcohol that is produced in the US is purchased by people who do not drink responsibly (alcoholics, minors, etc.) I agree with the UMC's stance on alcohol; I believe that Christians should abstain from alcohol, or at the very least public consumption of alcohol, if for no other reason than that there are, in our midst people who cannot drink responsibly. If one cannot drink responsibly, one should not drink at all. And those Christians who can drink responsibly should encourage the brother who is weaker with regard to alcohol to abstain. The most powerful way to do this is to use extreme prudence in one's own consumption of alcohol (if not outright abstinence).

 

[dies-l]

My statement is that the majority of people who drink do so responsibly, but that the majority of booze produced in this country is consumed by people who do not use it responsibly. Let's say for the sake of argument that a nation produces 1,000,000 servings of alcohol in a given period. Over that period 200,000 responsible people consume an average of 2 servings each. Over the same period 10,000 alcoholics consumer 50 servings each and 5,000 teenagers consume 20 servings each. Thus, in this example, both statements are true: The vast majority of people who drink do so responsibly and the majority of alcohol is consumed irresponsibly. Obviously these numbers are made up for illustrative purposes only. However, I would be willing to wager that this adequately describes how people generally relate to alcohol. Is it fair to ask those of the 200,000 who are Christians to either abstain totally or at least in public for the benefit of the 15,000 in their midst. Biblically, I think we are called to at least consider it. Granted, I was myself one who cannot use alcohol responsibly. I believe that this, in large part, is why the UMC, which is typically not terribly legalistic, takes the stand that it does.

 

[dies-l]

I am not going to go to great lengths to defend or prove my assumption. As I have stated, I don't know it to be true, but I believe, based on experience, that it likely is. That said, whether the stats bear it out is not terribly relevant to the point that I am making here, which is that there is a huge difference between the way "normal" people relate to alcohol and the way that people who are alcoholic and/or immature tend to relate to it. A person who is prone to alcoholism or irresponsible alcohol use will tend to completely lack the ability to use alcohol responsibly. OTOH, the vast majority (who I believe very likely consume less alcohol than the minority) of alcohol users can take it or leave it and see it as little more than an enjoyable pastime to be enjoyed in the appropriate circumstances. As such, I think it wise of the UMC to encourage the majority to forego this pleasure for the benefit of those for whom it has the potential for great destruction.

 

[Amisk]

Where did I ever say, "there is no pressure by society to drink"? You did not read that in what I wrote. That you claim I did tells me that you are not responding to what I actually wrote, but something you have read into it. There is a great deal of pressure by (at least some parts of) society to drink. You named several. I also gave an example of occassion that I have experienced where drinking took by some without pressure being placed on others to do likewise. And the reason was because philosophy was exactly the opposite of what you suggest above. There was no belief that to enjoy one's self one must have a glass of booze in hand. Indeed, to enjoy one's self, one didn't have to drink anything (alcoholic or non-alchololic) at all. Those who drank alcoholic beverages had chosen to, not for the purpose of experiencing its inhibriating effects, but because they liked its taste. Give that they made sure that they limited impairment from those things that you say lead people to pursue consuming greater and greater amounts of it. I submit that this particular group of Lutheran pastos was indeed drinking responsibily.

That is not to suggest that I propose that the drinking of alcohol can be justified as part of public policy because one small group is able to drink responsibliy. But you questioned above if there is such a thing as responsible drinking. My answer is that there is. And further that is rarely practiced by most people, but it in fact is by some.

Sorry for mis-quoting you! You are correct you did not say it.

 

[GraceSeeker]

My professor when I was taking the course Jesus Christ and His Interpretors in college. But you can find it lots of places on the web. During the Middle Ages Jews would separate men and women during the wedding celebration because there was so much drinking expected that they were afraid of inappropriate sex:

"wedding celebrations were conducted during the Middle Ages. Given the drinking of wine as a key element of the celebration, it was deemed best to segregate the sexes at the same time. The Jewish community has always had a great concern about being certain of patrimony, and so it didn't want to have men and women in close physical contact (i.e. dancing together) while they were simultaneously drinking alcohol" Jewish Tradition

A traditional wedding party (if the groom's father could afford it) lasted several days. Lots of time for some serious drinking.

"Jewish Weddings B.C.E.

The Ceremony: Before a wedding ceremony, there were seven days of celebration. Their wedding was usually held outdoors. Then, after the wedding, there were more festivities, known as the “Seven days of feast”.
History of Jewish Weddings: A Look at Weddings from Before Common Era to the 19th Century​

Look at the quantity of wine Jesus made for the wedding. ​

You've used the term "expected" in the sense of being anticipated. I thought you were using it as in moral obligation, and I did not see that fitting. The reason I reject the idea of it being moral obligation is that whenever drunkeness is commented upon in the scriptures it is not lifted up but repudiated. This despite the fact the drinking of alcohol itself is sometimes encouraged.

 

[Amisk]

Most here seem to be high on arguing for the use of alcohol if one can use it responsibly. Nobody seems to understand that every alcoholic was at one point in his life a responsible drinker, or at least he or she thought they were.

Secondly many is the responsible drinker who tied one on and just once and ended up killing some one in a car accident, or raping a woman or child and so on.

How many people that are sitting in a jail cell was a responsible drinker who slipped the cup just one time to often?

Then there is the influence of one's life on the folks around us. How many people saw those ministers sitting there drinking and assumed that the use of alcohol was fine because his or her minister was drinking booze. They may not have stayed around long enough to see if when the minister got up from the chair he walked away with a firm step, or did he stagger out the door.

Paul also has something to say about living our example before others:

"Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend." 1 Corinthians 8:13 KJV

"If what I eat is going to make another Christian sin, I will never eat meat again as long as I live – for I don't want to make another Christian stumble."
1 Corinthians 8:13 New Living Translation.

No matter how you cut that verse the message remains pretty strong.

Statistically most kids start drinking from Mom and Pop's family bar. It is also a fact that there is a much higher percentage of kids who start smoking at a young age whose parents smoke than those whose parent did not. For myself I remember thinking as a kid, if my Dad smokes (which he did at the time) then it should be okay for me, even though Dad told us it was habit forming and he was fighting to quit.

There is the old saying "Monkey see, Monkey do." and most of us fit into that category especially as kids and also young Christians reading fellow Christian lives more than the Bible. Would you drink if you knew in advance that you son or daughter would follow in your shoes and end up killing a car load of kids while under the influence of the Devil's brew?

 

[lucaspa]

It sounds like you are saying that drinking is "responsible" so long as it doesn't result in criminal activity.

Not at all. I agree with your list of examples where drinking is irresponsible. In fact, I listed some of those very things when I said:
"To be "irresponsible" means doing these things to the detriment of our own health, our personal relationships, doing our jobs, endangering others, avoiding responsibilities, etc. "

I do agree that most people who drink do so responsibly. I would also wager that the majority of alcohol that is produced in the US is purchased by people who do not drink responsibly (alcoholics, minors, etc.)

That I question. What are you willing to bet? Also, even tho minors are drinking illegally, for the most part they are drinking responsibly as you and I outlined "responsible".

I agree with the UMC's stance on alcohol; I believe that Christians should abstain from alcohol, or at the very least public consumption of alcohol, if for no other reason than that there are, in our midst people who cannot drink responsibly.

I will not drink alcohol in front of a known alcoholic. That is a violation, IMO, of the Great Commandment. However, your view would mean that no one could have a glass of wine with dinner in a public restaurant. That's a bit over the hill.

And those Christians who can drink responsibly should encourage the brother who is weaker with regard to alcohol to abstain.

Of course. Supporting AA or other programs for alcoholism or education of youth on how to drink responsibly should, IMO, be part of the ministry of every church. At least that church's own youth group should have meetings where the subject is how to drink responsibly.

But I question the stance of complete abstinence for everyone. I can understand the historical and cultural context in which Wesley formulated the idea. For that situation, Wesley had a very good point. But as a blanket policy, I think it goes too far.

Again, there is study after study showing medical benefits to light/moderate consumption of some alcoholic beverages, specifically red wine. A blanket abstinence denies those benefits to people who desire them.

 

[lucaspa]

Most here seem to be high on arguing for the use of alcohol if one can use it responsibly. Nobody seems to understand that every alcoholic was at one point in his life a responsible drinker, or at least he or she thought they were.

True, but it is equally true that very few people who take a drink become alcoholics.

Secondly many is the responsible drinker who tied one on and just once and ended up killing some one in a car accident, or raping a woman or child and so on.

By our definition, that is not responsible drinking. However, sober people have killed someone in a car accident, raped a woman or child, etc. We can't stop a behavior because of the acts of a few.

How many people that are sitting in a jail cell was a responsible drinker who slipped the cup just one time to often?

I don't know. How many? Do you have numbers? Compare those numbers to the number of people in jail or the number of people who drink.

Then there is the influence of one's life on the folks around us. How many people saw those ministers sitting there drinking and assumed that the use of alcohol was fine because his or her minister was drinking booze.

Again, how many? We can't live our lives thinking everything we do might have a negative impact on someone else. Do you always obey the speed limit? Do you ever think how many people see you speeding and assume it is OK?

Paul also has something to say about living our example before others:

"Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend." 1 Corinthians 8:13 KJV

And yet Paul advocated that Gentiles not obey the dietary laws even tho that offended his brother disciples.

You need to read all of chapter 8. It's about idolatry, not about examples as you are using the term: "Now as touching things offered unto idols, ... As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol [is] nothing in the world, and that [there is] none other God but one."

Paul is saying that if meat is associated with worship of idols, then Paul will not eat meat.

You need to read the Bible in context, not take verses out to make them mean what you want them to mean but different than what the author wanted them to mean.

Statistically most kids start drinking from Mom and Pop's family bar.

And statistically, most kids turn out to be responsible drinkers. You also haven't mentioned that some alcoholics come from abstinent families. Kids who see parents drinking responsibly, and whose parents demand the kids drink responsibly, will turn out to be responsible drinkers.

Would you drink if you knew in advance that you son or daughter would follow in your shoes and end up killing a car load of kids while under the influence of the Devil's brew?

Since we don't and can't know in advance that this will happen, the question is rhetorical. And alcoholic beverages are not the "devil's brew". If they were, then how do you account for Jesus making "the Devil's brew" by miracle? You are now accusing Jesus of doing the Devil's work. Do you really want to go there?

 

[Mr Dave]

I have friends whose parents gave them s a small amount of alcohol with meals during their teenage years so that they became used to drinking in moderation and so that their bodies could handle it. This meant that when they turned 18 they weren't released into city centres ready to drink having been restricted and then not being able to handle it. If people are brought up in abstinent homes they could either follow in their parents footsteps, or they could rebel as soon as they are able to get of hold of alcohol for themselves and then really destroy their kidneys and liver by having no understanding of drinking in moderation.

I'm not saying that total abstinence is a bad thing, it's a fantastic thing, but there is nothing wrong with drinking responsibly and in moderation.

Btw, before anyone says it's illegal, it's completely legal here to drink in your own home before the age of 18 (from the age of 5 actually), that's only the age for purchasing alcohol or drinking in public.

 

[dies-l]

Not at all. I agree with your list of examples where drinking is irresponsible. In fact, I listed some of those very things when I said:
"To be "irresponsible" means doing these things to the detriment of our own health, our personal relationships, doing our jobs, endangering others, avoiding responsibilities, etc. "



That I question. What are you willing to bet? Also, even tho minors are drinking illegally, for the most part they are drinking responsibly as you and I outlined "responsible".



I will not drink alcohol in front of a known alcoholic. That is a violation, IMO, of the Great Commandment. However, your view would mean that no one could have a glass of wine with dinner in a public restaurant. That's a bit over the hill.



Of course. Supporting AA or other programs for alcoholism or education of youth on how to drink responsibly should, IMO, be part of the ministry of every church. At least that church's own youth group should have meetings where the subject is how to drink responsibly.

But I question the stance of complete abstinence for everyone. I can understand the historical and cultural context in which Wesley formulated the idea. For that situation, Wesley had a very good point. But as a blanket policy, I think it goes too far.

Again, there is study after study showing medical benefits to light/moderate consumption of some alcoholic beverages, specifically red wine. A blanket abstinence denies those benefits to people who desire them.

It sounds like we are not in total disagreement, although we articulate our positions differently. I would like to point out one thing, however, which is my use of the word "should". My point is not that abstinence is a legal or moral requirement for the Christian. Scripture would not back that up. My point is that abstinence from alcohol, or at least abstinence in certain company, is a good thing. It is something that I believe that Christians should do, not something that I believe they must do. The distinction is important, as I am not about "denying benefits to people who desire them." Rather, I am suggesting that Christians prayerfully consider the risks (both physical and spiritual) and benefits of their decisions and that I believe that many Christians, having done so, will prefer to err on the side of abstinence.

 

[Mr Dave]

It sounds like we are not in total disagreement, although we articulate our positions differently. I would like to point out one thing, however, which is my use of the word "should". My point is not that abstinence is a legal or moral requirement for the Christian. Scripture would not back that up. My point is that abstinence from alcohol, or at least abstinence in certain company, is a good thing. It is something that I believe that Christians should do, not something that I believe they must do. The distinction is important, as I am not about "denying benefits to people who desire them." Rather, I am suggesting that Christians prayerfully consider the risks (both physical and spiritual) and benefits of their decisions and that I believe that many Christians, having done so, will prefer to err on the side of abstinence.

I would agree with you there. I myself drink a bit, and see benefit in doing so, but it is always important to remember whatever context you are in, and in certain situations, abstaining from drinking would be the best choice.

 

[GPguy]

I have a personal relationship with Jesus, and here is my say on it based on scriptural say.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7593355/

 

[bbbbbbb]

It sounds like we are not in total disagreement, although we articulate our positions differently. I would like to point out one thing, however, which is my use of the word "should". My point is not that abstinence is a legal or moral requirement for the Christian. Scripture would not back that up. My point is that abstinence from alcohol, or at least abstinence in certain company, is a good thing. It is something that I believe that Christians should do, not something that I believe they must do. The distinction is important, as I am not about "denying benefits to people who desire them." Rather, I am suggesting that Christians prayerfully consider the risks (both physical and spiritual) and benefits of their decisions and that I believe that many Christians, having done so, will prefer to err on the side of abstinence.

Nicely put. Thank you.

 

[Jadis40]

The only time I really drink any alcoholic beverages are at Thanksgiving and maybe Christmas, and that's when our family gathers to be together. Even then, we all do so in moderation, and since I don't really like the taste of it to begin with, I usually ending up drinking a single glass, if that.

Do I think the Bible has any teaching that Christians need to abstain completely? Not really. Does it caution about over-indulgence to the point of getting drunk? Sure.

 

[VolRaider]

I wonder if there is such a thing as responsible drinking. I note that no man starts drinking with the idea of becoming a slave to the demon of alcohol or drugs either one. Most drunks on skid row in the beginning thought that they were merely having a social drinking until they found themselves with no family, and living in a back alley of some city. Even then there is no hope for them until they admit that alcohol or drugs have got the best of them. The risk is too high to suggest that a man or woman can control their drinking.

It was the Late Arthur Bevan that instructed his family of nine kids that "it only takes one glass to make a drunk." From what I have seen over my life time his simple philosophy, pretty well hit the nail on the head.

The social drinking philosophy is a lie of both the Devil and the Breweries of time. Alcohol is likely the biggest cause of broken homes, abused children, and ruined lives of our century.

I disagree. The biggest cause of your last statement is the turning away from God. We could make something illegal or harder to get, but the sinner would only find some other method to cause damage. We need to get away from this mindset that things like alcohol and guns somehow magically cause people to harm others. Some of us need to fess up, quit blaming the alcohol, and turn to God for help.