The Grape Debate: A Response to Whether a Christian Can Drink Alcohol

A Prefatory Note

I want it to be clear from the outset that some of what follows may seem a bit sharp, but the word itself is sharp. Depending upon your conviction you may feel upset, you may feel encouraged, or you may just give a simple amen and carry on your merry way. I desire to present a biblical position to the question of Christians and the use of alcohol. Our source of authority for faith and practice is not whatever the contemporary time displays but always what God has revealed to us in his word. There were drunkards in Moses’ day, there were drunkards in Jesus’ day and there are drunkards today. Times change, but God’s word is forever sure. God’s truth is my aim and I pray you be blessed, challenged, and grow. This blog is primarily a response to those who believe it is sin to imbibe alcohol. However, throughout this response you will notice varying crowds being addressed.

Binding the Conscience vs Causing to Stumble

I want to start this with what might seem like an odd comparison. Which is worse: Adding to the gospel? Or causing a brother to stumble? Is it worse to subvert the gospel and add to it a list of sins that aren’t even found in the Law or to cause a weaker brother to sin against his conscience? Well, both are terrible. The former is described in terms of being devilish doctrine (1 Tim. 4:1-3) and not holding fast to the Head (Colossians 2:19), who is Christ, and the latter is described as destroying the work of God (Romans 14:15). They both sound pretty bad to me. But I suggest that the former—to add to the gospel—is a more heinous sin. I reason this is so based on the implications of those affected. To insist that drinking alcohol is a sin is to shut out persons from the Kingdom that God himself accepts. When it comes to ecclesiastical authority Paul warns us not to accept such man-made teaching and that such teaching is devilish and has no value in restraining the flesh (Col. 2:23). Thus, these man-made doctrines—more on that below—have no place in consciences of believers. If drinking alcohol is sin, and living in unrepentant sin means no eternal inheritance, no person who imbibes will inherit the kingdom. This is the logical outworking of such teaching. It makes Paul a liar. For Paul himself said that one may drink and give thanks to God and that God accepts him (Rom. 14:3, 21). Therefore, his thanksgiving in his drinking does make him more Christ-like. A person can drink beer to the glory of God and can become more Christ-like in doing so. This is because he is doing all things to the glory of God. He is not busy compartmentalizing his faith in categories of spiritual and secular but does all things spiritually. To insist that drinking alcohol is a sin for the Christian is not the territory I want to be teetering on. If the Apostle Paul were around and you taught such you just might experience what Peter did when he was sinning in a similar way.

An Example of Tyranny

Remember, this whole discussion is about food and drink. Remember when Peter was confronted by Paul? Why exactly did Paul rebuke Peter in front of everyone at Antioch? It was over food! (Galatians 2:11–14.) Peter was fine to eat with the Gentile converts until the Jewish believers arrived thus separating himself from those he once dined with. He took on this asceticism in fear of the circumcision group. The teetotaler groups of today are no better. To be true, I believe Paul's main concern was in regards to circumcision. This is seen by his denoting those who troubled the Galatians as the 'circumcision group' and by the epistle's focus on circumcision. However, Paul also notes that the Galatians were observing special days. These types of restrictions fall into the same category where food and drink are mentioned elsewhere by Paul. This category he calls 'elemental spirits' (see Col. 2:20–23 and Gal. 4:9). Peter was setting an example through his behavior that such eating was wrong. Paul was right to correct him. Now ask yourself, “Would I accept my brother if he had a beer in front of me during a Bible study?” No? You need to repent, and to accept your brother as God accepts him. Take example from God and accept the brother who enjoys his drink and praises his maker.

The Law of God vs the law of man

There is no question that Scripture forbids drunkenness. We are to be filled with the Spirit and not with wine (Eph. 5:18). Yet, Scripture teaches that God gives wine. “Bless the Lord, O my soul! O Lord my God, you are very great! You are clothed with splendor and majesty…You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man's heart” (Ps. 104:1, 14, 15). Not only this but God actually encouraged the Israelites to bring their wine and strong drink to enjoy it before him. “Then you shall turn it [tithes] into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the Lord your God chooses and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household” (Duet. 14:25, 26). Why, then, do some insist on creating laws that never existed in the first place? Are we wiser than God? Didn’t God know that some people might abuse alcohol? I’m sure he did. Just like he knew some would abuse the gospel. “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound” (Rom. 6:1)? We cannot put the gospel in fetters just because the Mormons misuse the Bible. We can’t do as the old Roman Catholic Church did and restrict Bible usage to those in authority so as to prevent it from being misused. And we cannot bind the consciences of men so as to prevent them from abusing something that is acceptable to God when taken in faith. Besides, such restrictions have no value in restraining the flesh. “If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations—‘Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch’ (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh” (Col. 2:20–23). We have no grounds to bind up burdens on believers that not only are not found in the Law but are actually contrary to what the Law taught—that wine, and other drink, is a blessing. “And because you listen to these rules and keep and do them, the Lord your God will keep with you the covenant and the steadfast love that he swore to your fathers. He will love you, bless you, and multiply you. He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground, your grain and your wine and your oil” (Duet. 7:12, 13). Like all other provisions from God they become a curse when not used in faith. While we cannot act glibly in causing a brother to stumble we dare not err the other way and even worse by adding restrictions where God has left us free.

The Weak and the Strong

The two main passages that speak to this issue in regards to communicants interacting with one another are found in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8, there are other relevant passages as we have seen. They are clear: 1) the strong brother must not cause the weak to stumble and must not despise him, 2) the weak brother must not judge the strong brother, and 3) they must accept each other. I would encourage you to read over these passages after reading this, or stop and read it right now, to understand that Paul has words for both parties. Now, there is a type of strong brother who does not eat meat or does not drink wine. His abstaining is not so much a principled abstaining in that he believes it is sin, that is a weak brother, but he abstains because of taste. Simply, he thinks beer tastes terrible. But he is not offended or tempted to act against his own conscience when another brother drinks in his presence. The weak brother is the one who takes the position that eating this or drinking that is sin. Contextually, in the epistle to the Corinthians, this is due to association that the drink or meat had at one time with idols. This context is important. However, I am willing to concede that we can take the issue further and go beyond idols and into the area of clean and unclean food and drink and Christian liberty in general. This is where we who are strong must bear with and accept the weaker brother. But we do not want him to remain weak. No, we want him to be strong. His becoming strong does not mean he must drink or must eat but that he must stop judging his brother who does partake. The path to this maturity is in understanding that there is nothing unclean. “And he said to them, ‘Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?’ (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, ‘What comes out of a person is what defiles him’” (Mk. 7:18–20). This is really the heart of the matter. It is not an issue of 'can' I or 'should' I but striving for unity. This unity is not found in everyone abstaining or everyone partaking but everyone accepting one another whether he does or does not. This is the issue. Accept your brother for God accepts him. That means when you see your brother walking out of Hy-Vee Wine and Spirits you aren't aghast but pleased to see your brother. It also means that you who do drink don't pressure others to drink when they are uncomfortable with it. Keep matters to yourself, that is Paul's counsel.

A Gnostic Error

At the end of the popular article entitled Can a Christian Drink Alcohol by Barry Cameron1 is this statement: “The bottom line is this: the question really isn’t CAN A CHRISTIAN DRINK? Rather, it is: SHOULD A CHRISTIAN DRINK?” Throughout the article Barry suggests that drinking is permissible but not beneficial, my wording. He says, “I have yet to hear from anyone who drinks how alcohol enhances anything or blesses anyone.” Thus, in his understanding, drinking alcohol is not prohibited but it is, or at least seems that it is, never beneficial. This, friends, presents quite the quandary. How can Paul say that God accepts the faith of the one who does partake if it is not beneficial (see Rom. 14)? This leads to a distinction without a difference. The ‘can’ and ‘should’ distinction reduces to the same answer. If it is never beneficial you should not drink. But this means a Christian cannot, in good faith, drink because he should not. And this because it is not beneficial. So, we make Paul a liar, I believe this is done unintentionally, when he says that God accepts the person who partakes. “Let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats [the context includes drinking wine v.21], for God has welcomed him” (Rom. 14:3b). This type of reasoning that the author provides has a Gnostic tinge. When we opine that an item cannot be used for beneficial purposes, such as a beer, we have drawn a line between the physical and the spiritual that God has not. As stated earlier, this is a perspective that sees things through eyes of secular and spiritual. All things are to be done spiritually by the Christian. We are to do everything to the glory of God. “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31). “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17). In short it is not what you eat or drink but how you eat or drink. An atheist with the most scientifically balanced diet ever discovered is not eating acceptably before God. Why? He is not doing it in faith. A man catching a quick meal at McDonald’s during his lunch break who gives thanks to God for his Big Mac is doing better than that man. Now consider the following scenarios and ask who is doing what he is doing for the glory of God. One man is a believer who after work loves to sit on his couch and turn on his favorite sport while enjoying a glass of milk with a row of Oreo cookies. He knows he probably shouldn’t eat the whole thing, and he has to hush the kids when they get too loud, but he has his custom and is pretty consistent in it. Another man, who is also a believer, after coming home from work tends to his household duties and serves where he can and takes care to instruct his children in the Lord. At the dinner table he enjoys a glass of wine with his meal and gives thanks as the family sits together, spends some time in the Scriptures and occasionally will sing a psalm, yes an actual psalm. Which man is doing all he does to God’s glory? Now let me ask you a question that might sting a little, which one would you feel more comfortable around?

An Example of Beer Blessings

One other myth I would want to dispel found in the above article concerns testimony. Concerning beer he wrote, "I've yet to see how it improves someone's testimony or makes anyone a more effective witness for Christ." Besides this being another example of Gnostic thinking (does having a glass of milk improve one's testimony?) I will offer one example that is Christian to its roots. It is the example of Arthur Guinness, his family, and the company he started. Arthur was himself a Christian. This quotation is lengthy but I hope it demonstrates that beer can indeed be a blessing.

"From the beginning of their corporate and family history, the Guinnesses had embraced their obligation to the needy of the world. This began at home, with their own employees. Edward Cecil Guinness, great-grandson of founder, Arthur, expressed a foundational company conviction when he said, “You cannot make money from people unless you are willing for people to make money from you.” Accordingly, the Guinness brewery routinely paid wages that were 10 to 20 percent higher than average, had a reputation as the best place to work in Ireland, and, as important to many employees, allowed workers two pints a day of their famous dark stout. Moreover, the benefits the company gave its employees surpass those even envisioned by modern companies like Google and Microsoft. Consider the snapshot provided by a Guinness company report in 1928, not an exceptionally enlightened time for corporate treatment of employees. Guinness workers at the brewery in Dublin enjoyed the attention of two fully qualified doctors who staffed an on-site clinic where any employee, wife, or child could receive treatment. These privileges extended to widows and pensioners, as well. The doctors were available night or day, made house calls, and would consult specialists on their patients’ behalf if necessary. There were also two dentists available to employees, two pharmacists, two nurses, a “lady visitor” who assured healthy conditions in workers’ homes, and a masseuse. Hospital beds were provided both at the Guinness plant and at a “sanatoria” in the country, intended for patients recovering from tuberculosis. This was only the beginning. Retirees received pensions “at the pleasure of the board,” without having to make contributions of their own. This benefit extended to widows as well. If an employee or an employee’s family member died, the company paid the majority of the funeral expenses. To improve the lives of their employees, the company provided a savings bank on site and contributed to a fund from which workers could borrow to purchase houses. To make sure that life in these homes was all it could be, the company also sponsored competitions to encourage domestic skills, with cash awards for sewing, cooking, decorating, gardening, and hat making. Concerts and lectures were provided for the wives of workers, in the belief that the moral and intellectual level of a home would rise only to that of the mother or wife who lived there. This same philosophy led to the company’s sponsorship of guilds and associations of every kind. There was an association for the keeping and breeding of “Dogs, Poultry, Pigeons and Cage birds,” for the cultivation of vegetables and flowers, and for the “encouragement of Home Industries.” An athletic union was founded that sponsored competitions in Gaelic football, cricket, cycling, boxing, swimming, hurling, and tug-of-war. Beyond this, hardly a skill essential to brewing was not represented by a guild or professional development society, all sponsored by the company. The educational benefits were also more generous than most modern corporations provide. Guinness paid for all its employees between the ages of fourteen and thirty to attend technical schools in Dublin and even funded more advanced education for those who were qualified. There was a lending library at the plant, a musical society, and “Workmen’s Rooms”—which were lounges that allowed a hardworking man to read or just to think, to focus his mind on something beyond his labors. There were also classes in wood carving, cage making, fretwork, sketching, photography, cabinet making, handwriting, music, singing, and dancing. The generosity of Guinness seemed unlimited. Every year, every employee was paid to take his family into the country for an “Excursion Day.” Train fare was paid and money for food and entertainment was provided. Single men were allowed to take dates and, again, the company paid the bill. On the Jubilee of Queen Victoria, Guinness paid every employee an extra week’s salary."2

Let us dispel these myths. Let us accept one another. Let us not seek to bind consciences or cause others to stumble.

"Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity! It is like the precious oil on the head, running down on the beard, on the beard of Aaron, running down on the collar of his robes! It is like the dew of Hermon, which falls on the mountains of Zion! For there the Lord has commanded the blessing, life forevermore."

Psalm 133

1 https://www.crossroadschristian.org/blogs/blog/12806077-can-a-christian-drink-alcohol#
2 The Search for God and Guinness by Stephen Mansfield, excerpt from Introduction
Further resources:
Books:
God Gave Wine by Kenneth Gentry
What Would Jesus Drink by Joel McDurmon
Videos:
The Tyranny of the Weaker Brother by R.C. Sproul (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hX-ifma5-k)
Sermon: Love is Not Relativism (Romans 14: 1-4) by Douglas Wilson (http://www.canonwired.com/sermons/1567/)