There is a very interesting and entertaining program on the Fine Living network called The Thirsty Traveler. This is a show in which the host tours the world to discover the secrets of the making and enjoying of fine wines, beers, and liquors. It is a truly fascinating show revealing the rich history of the fermentation of various plants for the production of potable beverages. I say potable beverages because the very purpose of the fermentation process is to produce a beverage that is safe to drink from waters that have often been quite deadly. Before the age of chlorine treatment of drinking water, the most common means of cleaning water was the manufacture of alcoholic drinks in which the fermentation process destroys harmful bacteria. That alcohol was God's provision for safe and healthful drinking water in primitive cultures. What many Christians have called the devil's brew has actually been God's elixir of life.
This may be an extraordinary conclusion—I am convinced that few would agree—but it seems to be quite reasonable. For millennia, the only means mankind possessed for sanitizing his drinking water has been fermentation and simple boiling. Given that boiling a fluid solution of some kind is an essential step in the distillation of alcohol, one may wonder why not stop with the boiling. Why did God teach man to ferment his grains and fruits? Just as in sex, the simple pleasure provides the motivation to do what is essential. In considering the choices, one must remember that the knowledge of the necessity of water purification long eluded mankind, but God taught men to distill alcohol to that end by giving him a pleasurable end product—long before an understanding of the nature and importance of what they were doing was generally known.
Some may now object that God would not give man an object the abuse of which is so destructive regardless of particular pleasures and benefits it might otherwise provide, but we may ask why this should be so. Are there no other objects given to man which offer wonderful pleasures and benefits when used in measure but that produce grievous consequences when abused? Well...sexual reproduction comes to mind. Could not God have avoided much heartache in His design of the world by providing some other means of reproduction or by making sexual reproduction less socially complicated? Ah, one might say, but that is different. God imparted into the act of sex a special set of problems and dangers and choices. We might then ask why similar properties might not also exist for other gifts as well. As it seems very clear that the distillation of alcohol carries a similar body of pleasures and dangers as the gift of sexual reproduction, there is no reason for us to suppose that the two should be regarded differently.
Another important aspect to this issue that must be understood is that the movement that came to be known as teetotalism that eventually climaxed in the Prohibition era in the United States has its origins only about 150 years ago. It was not until about the middle of the nineteenth century when the idea arose that the practice of distilling and consuming alcoholic beverages is sinful. It is my view that this idea came from a confusion of God's purposes and a misunderstanding of the liberty given us. There are few things in this life that we may call invariably sinful. Certainly, no material thing of this universe is so by its very nature. It is not things themselves that are sinful but the uses to which they are put. Teetotalism errs by assigning the sinfulness of an abuse of an object to the object itself. Should we conclude that sex is sinful even in marriage because there are abuses thereof?
I leave it to others to defend the doctrine of teetotalism with the Bible. Nowhere can such a doctrine be found, and its construction involves such a distortion and extension of the meaning of certain passages that it hardly seems necessary to refute it. It is important for all to understand that it would have been a sin for Jesus to have abstained from fermented beverages. The wine that a Jew was obliged to drink for certain rituals was not Kool Aid and neither was the product of that first miracle that Jesus performed at Cana. These were all stout, intoxicating liquors that when used within proper limits provided important benefits to those who drank them, and the fact that they could be abused and used as tools for sin does not desecrate their role in sacred Jewish ritual.
Now some may wish to object here that there is a clear demarcation between those who "indulge" in intoxicating liquors and those who do not. Those who drink are seen as more worldly than those who do not. I propose, however, that this distinction is artificial and the product of teetotalism in the Church and not the result in any natural separation. When Evangelicals adopted teetotalism, they created an artificial morality by which they would necessarily stand apart. When one now observes the sanctity of Evangelicals alongside the worldliness of the average drinking person, what he is observing is the boundary that we are taught must exist between believers and unbelievers with the boundary between drinkers and non-drinkers artificially superimposed upon it. In other words, the line between saint and sinner has been falsely drawn along the line between drinker and non. Certain Christian sects do similar things with much more clearly absurd objects. There is that one sect, for example, that holds the wearing of any jewelry to be a sin. They have drawn the line between sinner and saint on a boundary of who does and does not wear jewelry. All of this seems to be getting dangerously close to works religion, which is exactly what Christianity denies itself to be.
This sort of artificial morality has very destructive consequences. It can become a barrier to Faith. If a drinking man who is not an alcoholic believes that he must—or will inevitably—become a teetotaler upon becoming a believer, he will very likely have an extra layer of reluctance to penetrate before so doing. If that truly is Christianity, then it is just his dumb luck, but if it is not, then the Church has erected an artificial barrier to Faith for him. One might now argue that the man is accepted just as he is, but the man does not understand this. Even if he is explicitly told, "Just as you are," he is going to count the cost of what he is proposing to do. He is not going to understand all of the subtle nuances of doctrine by which he might be influenced. He will rather view the question in gross terms, "I am now this. Do I really wish to become that?" Do you think there has never been anyone throughout all time who has turned back because of some artificial morality that was set before him. Over the course of the first few centuries of the Church, the Lord brought about certain changes that removed the burden of becoming Jewish on those who would become Christian. As a result, Christianity can be transplanted into any culture and people without forcing every heathen to become a Jew. The problem is that Christians sometimes put up artificial replacements, such as teetotalism, that have a similar effect.
Nevertheless, ought not we avoid alcohol anyway to keep our minds clear? No. One can use alcohol responsibly and still keep one's wits. We must avoid at all costs, however, the creation of an artificial moral code, so we ought to say that there is no sin in the moderate and reasonable use of alcohol. Demonstrative of that stance, we should actually return alcohol to our churches and our communion tables. We should teach the world how to use alcohol in a Godly way and form.
As I watch The Thirsty Traveler, I am amazed at the wide variety of ways that man has learned to sanitize filthy water making it palatable to drink in the process. This is truly a gift from God that has served its purpose well. In an age of chlorinated drinking water—at least in the West—there is still no reason to decry alcohol or its reasonable uses and very good reason to openly embrace it.
Comments