On Drink

Many Evangelicals have the extremely odd notion that drinking is immoral. What is even odder is that they think that the moral ban on the consumption of alcohol is biblical, and moreover part of 'traditional' morality. The reality is utterly different. Indeed, not only is the moderate consumption of alcohol not immoral, it is in fact entirely good and wholesome. First, the prohibition of alcohol amongst Christians is a very recent thing and its inception has very little to do with any careful exegesis of the Bible. In the nineteenth century, most of the cultural elites, the bourgeoisie, in America were Protestants. For the bourgeois strata of society, work became a focal point for morality. It was generally believed, in a some what self-justifying manner, that wealth was the product of virtue, especially the virtue of delayed gratification. (Weber's famous Protestant work ethic pertains more to Victorians than it does to Puritans). Immorality, by contrast, was that which contributed to unproductively and sloth. The consumption of alcohol, therefore, was considered immoral because it represented immediate gratification and was believed to be inconsistent with the high ethical virtue of hard work. Moral opposition to drinking was reinforced by the prejudice of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) against continental Catholics (the Irish, Poles, Italians, etc.). These continentals did not share the ethics Anglo-American Protestants when it came to delayed gratification. Indeed, alcoholic consumption was quite common among ethnic minorities on Sundays (so-called 'continental Sundays'). Continental and Irish immigrants typically came from rural economies, or at least economies that were not industrialized, and therefore did not place the same priority on efficiency and productivity. Indeed, the concept of the clock and the workday were utterly foreign to them. Victorians viewed their poor adaptation to the strange new world of industrial-capitalist society as sheer indolence . In the eyes of pious Victorians, this confirmed the evils of drink. Thence sprung the temperance campaign and, eventually, prohibition. Evangelicals, of course, are heirs of many Victorian sensibilities. Therefore, the opposition of many Evangelicals to alcohol can be traced back to the nineteenth century Protestant work ethic.

But what do the Scriptures themselves have to say about the subject? It should be noted that until the nineteenth century, Scripture was not commonly interpreted as laying down a ban on alcohol consumption. Luther famously stated that he and Melanchthon essentially started the Reformation over ale in a tavern. The Puritans were anything but puritanical with regards to drinking; the first breweries in America were founded by Puritans. This favorable outlook on drinking can be traced to the fact that Scripture reveals Jesus to be the Lord of wine. For my case, I will focus on John 2:1-12; the Feast at Cana. Here is incontrovertible evidence that Jesus looks favorably on drinking; his very first miracle involves the creation of alcohol. If drinking was immoral, it is difficult to see why our Savior would create 120 gallons of wine. It is, of course, sometimes claimed that what Jesus created was unfermented grape juice. First this is completely unwarranted from the text. This interpretaton is foisted onto the text because of some Christians' preconceived ethical notions; alcohol must be bad, therefore despite all appearances to the contrary, it must be grape juice. Secondly, the words used to describe what the wedding guests had consumed and what Jesus created for them to consume are exactly the same; oinov from oinos, which means nothing other than "wine." It is obvious that the original wine was clearly alcoholic. The master of the feast expressed surprise that the that Jesus produced was of fine rather than of poor quality. This was typical; the poor wine usually followed the two days during which the guests methysthosin - literally, " have gotten drunk"- and therefore would have been so far gone as to not have noticed the reduced quality of wine. Therefore, we have Jesus turning water into wine which exceeds the quality, and therefore alcoholic content, of wine that was already potent enough to have gotten the wedding guests drunk.

In conclusion, we see that the Evangelical aversion to drink is not rooted in sound biblical hermeneutic, but in certain nineteenth century (bourgeoisie) sensibilities. In fact, a more careful look at the life of Jesus indicates that not only is Jesus not anti-alcohol, but may possibly be pro-alcohol. Throughout the gospels Christ uses the metaphor of a feast for the consummate kingdom of God, and in those days feasts were not non-alcohol affairs. As Jesus demonstrated at Cana, he is the lord of the (alcohol present) feast. Now I do not want to err in the other direction and say that there is something wrong with abstaining from alcohol. I think a proper analogy is marriage, especially since both marriage and the feast are used as metaphors for our union with Christ. Jesus and Paul both tell us that marriage is a good institution and is ordained by God. However, they also tell us that it is, like all elements of human culture, corrupted by sin. Furthermore, they tell us it good for some people to abstain from marriage if they feel so called. Accordingly, I believe that drink is a good think derived from God's good creation. However, like marriage it has been corrupted by sin. The abuse of drink can lead to alcoholism, debauchery, or poor decisions. Some people, such as recovering alcoholics, people with a low tolerance for alcohol, or people who simply do not know their limits, are wise to abstain. Some people may simply not like to drink. Therefore, what we need is to strike a balance that recognizes our freedom in Christ, but also weakness of our brothers.

Drink because you are happy, but never because you are miserable.

— G.K. Chesterton

Education

Recently I have been seeing a lot of reports on how America is falling behind on education. I'm not going to debate whether or not America is falling behind in education; I'm not qualified to make an opinion on that, though based on anecdotes I am sure it probably is. What I do take issue with is how these reports determined that America is falling behind in education. The same statistic I keep seeing over and over again is that Americans are less competent in science and math than South Koreans and Singaporeans.

So what? Are math and science the only two academic subjects?

Obsessions with math and science scores are what really burn me. It is treated as if there two subjects are foundation of all important knowledge. If we don't know the classics of literature, the history of our civilization, or art and music, it's fine. But God forbid if most students aren't apt at math and science. I remember when I was in high school and several schools in the area were forced to shut down their music programs and divert funds to math and science classes. I remember my music teacher encouraging us to do well on our standardized tests - not primarily because he cared about us being scientifically and mathematically competent, but because the music program at my high school could suffer as a consequence!

The obsession with math and science scores rubs me personally. I am not at all good at math and science. When I was getting ready to apply to grad school I took the GRE's. I scored in the top tenth percentile on the verbal section, but was in the bottom quarter in terms of the math. A similar fate befell me on my SATs (though not quite as lopsided; the GREs came after three years of mostly humanities/social sciences and little math). If I took a math/science competence test today I am sure that the majority of students from South Korea would make me look silly. Whoever does the reports on American education would probably idiotically assume that the American education system failed me, despite the fact that I graduated cum laude with high honors from college.

I remember when one of my professors shared an anecdote with my seminar class (It's something that humanities students do; it's where you are forced to make arguments and express ideas amongst your peers and your professor. It requires you to be smart, lucid, and well-spoken, and it doesn't require bubble sheets). He told us that once he went a lecture by the very prestigious scholar Peter Brown, where Brown shared a story from his childhood. He said that one day the headmaster at his school noticed that he was an especially bright young man (amazingly, he was able to do this without a standardized test) and called him into his chambers. The headmaster asked Brown what plans such an intelligent boy had for his future. Brown replied that he thought of becoming a scientist. The headmaster shook and his head and said, "No, no lad. A bright young man such as yourself shouldn't waste his intellect doing that."

That was in the 1940s. Much has changed since then. Primarily Western civilization, and America specifically, has been technocratic. It is assumed that if we pool enough scientists and bureaucrats together we can solve the world's problems through policy. Man is treated as if he were an object rather than a subject. We think that material bounty and prosperity, produced by social engineering, will usher in a utopia. American's especially are drawn into consumerism and technophilia. We just want a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington or, if lean further to the right, a bunch of venture capitalists and techno-wizards in the Bay Area, to find a technocratic solution to all of our problems.

Dr. T. David Gordon's analysis of technophilia

Thus the really important subjects are those that produce bureaucrats or scientists or software engineers or bankers; math and science. The humanities are treated as something nice to be added on top of a solid math/science based education. . .if it doesn't distract too much. . .and if you are into that sort of thing.

I think (and of course I am being very biased in this, though if you studied humanities you would find that an unbiased opinion is impossible) that the whole way education is viewed in this country is topsy-turvy. Humanities at are the core of an education; science and math are at the peripheries. Now, I'm not saying that physics and biological majors ought to drop out of their programs and become art history majors. What I am saying is that I think that the humanities are central to our understanding of humanity (as the name implies) and thus of ourselves. The real problems that face humanity involve human beings! Technocracy hasn't come near to solving our problems and never will, because the real devil isn't in the world, it's in us. I'm not saying that science, math, and technology aren't important, because they are. They can eliminate many evils in the world such as disease, malnutrition, and water contamination. They can also create new ones such as the maxim gun, poison gas, the atom bomb, and cyber bullying.

The point is that any real wisdom concerning the human condition involves the study of the humanities. I don't mean to say that the humanities will make us more humane; I've met enough humanities scholars to know that immersing yourself in history or literature does not automatically make you wise or a good person. There are other components necessary for wisdom and virtue, but I think knowledge about humanity is an integral part.

Currently, we are in a world that desperately needs wisdom. It is telling that the white collar crimes and corporate greed that helped precipitate the current economic crisis did not generate reflection on the what we as a culture valued, but rather calls for more government regulation of the markets. Most people have a naïve view of humanity and the human condition. Most alarmingly, the citizens of our Republic are incredibly ignorant of our civilization's history, of the kinds of law and government that govern our country, or of human nature generally. As technology, especially biotechnology, pose difficult ethical questions for us, most Americans are ignorant of ethics and lack moral guidance.

Again, studying the humanities will not provide a golden ticket to good future. There are other elements, not the least moral and religious elements, that are also required. However, a greater emphasis on the humanities, or at the very least the avoidance of a utilitarian descent into a math/science dominated educational system, might help to re-orient our culture's values. It might encourage us to look to the good, the beautiful, and the true, rather at the materially gratifying. It might give us a more nuanced view of the world and of humanity. It might make us a little more discerning when it comes to politicians and their policies. And it might make us better citizens.