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