Alcoholics & Abstinence

As I continue an unplanned series of posts on alcohol, I have some thoughts that are really unrefined, but ones I want to share and get some interaction on.  Nothing in stone in this post but our faith in God's mercy.

I wonder why we don't teach that God can work in "alcoholics" so that they can change and get to the point where they drink a glass of wine with dinner and not re-enter a lifestyle of abuse.  I know some of you will immediately think I'm trying to build a "law" that everyone must drink alcohol.  That's not what I'm saying at all.  Some of you are thinking "Why???"  "Why would you want to tempt an alcoholic to return to that lifestyle?"  Bottom line: I just think it's good for us to reconsider our cultural assumptions on addiction and filter them through what God says He is doing.  He is transforming us, and abstinence seems to be an anti-transformation mentality.

For example, we know that God has given a Spirit of self-control (2 Timothy 1:7).  So why do we assume an "alcoholic" (may help to question our terminology too) cannot gain self-control that is strong enough to overpower a tendency toward addiction?  We are new creations in Christ.  We have been given new desires.  We have new hearts. 

I know it might take time, and I know there are dangers.  But we don't live according to dangers, and we don't walk by sight.  We live by faith, and if I'm trusting God then I'm believing he changes people deeply and in sometimes shocking ways.

My point isn't to push people toward drinking after years of abuse.  I'm simply asking if we shouldn't teach that God can and does change people and that alcoholics can find themselves enjoying a brew with friends someday without getting drunk.  Sounds good to me.  Once again, it seems to be the most Scriptural view and one that trusts in the character and work of Christ.

Practically speaking, alcoholism is often born out of something else.  It can be to escape from responsibility, the pain of loss, and so on.  I know alcoholics who say that they only tend to get on a binge when they are around certain friends, or situations, or with their band members. 

Many times alcoholism is said to be something that "runs in our family."  It may be that you are more predisposed to be addicted to alcohol, but that doesn't mean you can't learn to enjoy it in a God-glorifying way.

I'm not recommending anything here.  I'm not telling addicts to find the nearest Liquor Barn and start nursing on cheap beer.  What I'm hoping for is a good dialogue on the spiritual understandings of addiction and on the Spirit's work of redemption and sanctification.

Comments

[Scott M]

Hmmm. Steve, you seem unaware of the fact that with true alcoholics we have identified differences in the way they respond physically and measurably to alcohol. Their bodies do not process alcohol in the same way as most of the population. Barring a miracle of physical transformation, it's never going to be safe for them to drink.

[Scott M]

The following is actually a pretty good description of problem drinkers, which many people confuse with those who actually have the disease of alcoholism. We are accumulating more data all the time and there is a lot of data out there now about the different physical response even in the brain to alcohol by true alcoholics. I've supported everything you've posted up to now, but please don't perpetuate the deep American bias that alcoholism (as opposed to problem drinking) is a moral failing rather than a physical disease.

[Steve McCoy]

Scott, I think the American bias is that alcoholism IS a physical disease, NOT a moral failing. I don't agree with you there.

Otherwise, generally speaking, I hear you and I'm actually mostly sympathetic. But this post is for dialogue and not one guy saying "don't do this" and so we all don't.

Here's a question I have for you. If they find out there is a "gay gene," something in our dna, does that make it okay? Or how about if studies find a gene that makes certain people lust more, or whatever it is. It seems like your point of view is strictly physical, but I think many of our problems are physical yet we don't abstain from other things. Just because we can scientifically find out what our tendencies may be doesn't mean that we can't overcome those tendencies by God's grace.

Another question is, and it's the one you really raise, is should we allow the "scientific" studies dictate what we believe we should and should not do? To what extent?

[Steve McCoy]

Scott M, I also want to mention that I have spent time commenting on other blogs in reference to former posts, and have been saying the same thing that you said about seeing the difference between alcohol abusers and "alcoholics." I do think there is a difference, and in my former stuff on "abusers" I meant those not addicted. Here I'm definitely speaking of the addicts.

[Scott M]

Your response is muddled and confused. Last I checked, the majority of Christians do expect most with a predilection toward gay sex to abstain, whether it is genetic or environmental. However, in this case you really need to be at least passingly conversant with the pretty extensive science behind our current understanding of alcoholism before suggesting -- in any context -- that alcoholics should drink.

I was with you on all your posts on this topic until you reached that point. That says absolutely nothing about what other people should do, but alcoholics can't drink. Their bodies can't handle it. And the disease never stops progressing, no matter how long they don't drink.

[Steve McCoy]

Scott M, provide the info that has convinced you. As I said, my post is supposed to start dialogue, nothing is "in stone." Why are you reading it in any other way?

[Kevin Cawley]

Steve (and others), I have enjoyed following this thread and enjoying the thoughts and dialogue it has produced. That being said, I haven't followed all of the threads within the comments, so if I speak of something that has already been dealt with, feel free to delete my comment no hard feelings

Steve, along the lines you bring up, I don't have a problem with saying that all of us are genetically predisposed toward certain sins. For some alcohol, others homosexuality, others computer games, I know you struggle with obsessively collecting beanie babies.

However, I also don't have a problem with people freely and joyfully abstaining from things that they know are significant struggles for them. Are you saying that this is a problem for you?

From my understanding of Paul's argument in Romans 14 and my own personal experience, strong people bend. This seems to be an issue that we should be eager to bend on. Am I misunderstanding you? Obviously, we don't want to live as captives to fear-- and when those are issues that need to be addressed, address them. But, I don't think we should chalk up abstinence as a negative thing out of hand.

[Steve McCoy]

Generally speaking Kevin (since you are speaking generally and not just about this thread), I think abtinence is a very American idea. But I think if we were having this conversation with 1st century Christians (or most Christians of most ages) the idea of abstinence as a lifestyle rather than for a short time considering the company we keep would be strange.

Now, it may be bigger than I think and I'm willing to be flexible (bend?) here. I left this post as a "soft" post for a reason, and want to encourage discussion on this, not just position sharing.

[D.R. Randle]

I agree with Kevin on this Steve. As someone who has dealt with (and is still) a type of addiction, I think abstinance is the only solution. Not only does science back this up, but it seems Scriptural in regard to the passages referring to the "weaker brother." There doesn't seem to be any indication that this weakness gets better. And in the case of Paul, the weakness (whether physical or spiritual) never ceased. I noted in the earlier discussion that Augustine abstained from food simply because he felt it COULD overtake him, thrusting him into a lifestyle of gluttony (ironically, he seemed to suggest that bending in this regard would lead to bending on other possible problem areas such as sexual sin). He is held up as an example of disciplined spiritual vigor, not as a legalist or as someone who was never able to be mature enough to learn to enjoy food properly.

Additionally, I think we need to be honest here and say that as Americans and Westerners we tend to lean toward over consumption, rather than a legalistic abstention. In a ancient Near East culture, moderation and abstinence were virtues to be embraced and celebrated. So I don't think this issue should be forced in either direction, but as I said earlier should be seriously dealt with on an individual basis using Romans 14 as an important reference text.

[Steve McCoy]

D.R., I know where you are coming from. I do. But 1. do you think the Scriptures teach that the weaker brother should stay weak (or conversely, don't you think it would rock if a weaker brother was strengthened), and 2. don't you think Paul's "weakness" might very well be something different than an addiction sort of issue?

I'm trying to be careful here, and I'm not trying to convince myself of a certain side. But I am arguing from a certain view to see if it makes sense.

[Kevin Cawley]

(Not being antagonistic in the LEAST) But...how would you defend that "abstinence is a very American idea"? I could see how, within your tradition, and the larger evangelical tradition as a whole, abstinence relating to alcohol might fit that category. But, I'm not sure I buy your reasoning here.

Help me understand why you say that?

And, I understand you're being careful here...and I appreciate what you're doing.

[Elliot R]

Very interesting discussion Steve.

I do think we regularly excuse moral failings by describing them in other terms. That said I don't think it is a simple decision of the will that is required to overcome sin.

Secondly we have generally lost our faith in the gospel to actually change people, and we don't even seem to mind, in fact we use it as an opportunity to talk up grace all the more. Any changes that are admitted are hidden and invisible! We don't expect Christians to be better people.

Sometimes fleeing from temptation makes sense but hopefully there comes a time when we can stand, because what once tempted us finds no handle in us.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Elliot

[john rushing]

greatly appreciate your bringing this topic out for discussion and thought. i think your distinction between "abuse and addiction" is an important one.

one can be a regular abuser of mood-altering substances without being addicted to them. the abuser doesn't "need" the substance, thsy just like the effects. an addict needs the substance just to feel normal. the addict does not ingest simply for pleasure but to relieve the psychic and physical discomfort which the substance alleviates. but soon enough in the addiction cycle, the substance no longer provides the relief sought and the vicious cycle of increasing amounts begins.

addiction has nothing to do with the amount ingested or the frequency of ingestion. it has to do with the results of ingestion. someone who does not have an addiction to alcohol could say, 'i'm going to go have a beer or two and watch the game with my friends".this guy could have his beer or two and leave it at that without a second thought. the alcoholic might say that and actually mean it, but once they start to drink, they may stop at a beer or two but sooner or later, maybe not that night, but sure as shooting, they're going to end up drunk.

can a "true" alcoholic ever learn to drink moderately? i honestly don't know. do i believe God could so redeem an individual with an addiction to alcohol to the point where they could drink without sinning(getting drunk)? i absolutely believe God could and probably does do this. personally, i would feel like i was tempting/testing God if i tried to drink "normally" but that's not to say others couldn't have a different experience.

thanks for generating discussion on this widely misunderstood subject.

[Bob Robinson]

I certainly am sympathetic to the comments above from people who are tuned into the scientific data on alcoholism. This data should indicate to us that we must be VERY CAREFUL, if we are truely physically addicted to something, to play with that fire.

But I think the point that Steve is raising is very valid, especially in light of his previous post on REDEMPTION.

Redemption includes everything: emotional, physical, psychological, mental, social, and spiritual fallenness. This being said, we also admit that we live between the times--in the "already/not yet" of redemption--when the Kingdom of God is both "upon us" and "still coming." So, we know that not all with alcohol problems may find total release.

Anyway, if we trust that Christ can redeem a person in so many other ways (sexual addiction, bulimia, gluttony, greed, pride, jealosy, etc.), then we had better also trust that Christ can redeem a person who is an alcoholic. And by this, I do not simply mean "forgive," that is not what "redemption" means. I mean REDEEM! We must believe that Christ can redeem a person even all the way to point of enjoying all of God's blessings (including alcohol) without the the fear of the taint of sin.

[Larry]

I quite frankly see more confusion here among the responses than with the post. The Bible says nothing about a "disease" called alcoholism. It does speak of a sin called drunkenness. "Addiction" as well is a secular term with no Biblical support. That's what this is, the sin of drunkenness. We can dress it up in all the scientific lingo we want and blame our background and family circumstances or genes as well but in the end, its simply the sin of drunkenness.

Now, I don't know that I agree that a person who was in bondage to this sin should put themselves in the path of temptation. We're told to flee temptation, not see how close we can get to the flame without being burned.

However, the secular approach to 'alcoholism' steeped in psychology and a 'disease' mentality is in error as well. All sin is dealt with through confession and repentance and the working of the Holy Spirit in our lives whether its drunkenness, lying, homosexuality, whatever.

[Scott]

My wife and I were talking about this recently and within the context of Communion. I would love to see Communion offer real wine. In this sacred context, perhaps, lies the road of redemption.

[Steve McCoy]

I want to recommend this short audio cultural exegesis from St. Annes Pub: Doug Wilson on Whine.

[Scott M]

Steve,

I can't provide links to the science because I don't know where (or even if) they are online. My reading on the topic, including some new discoveries just a few years ago, have been offline. (I made a brief attempt to find some of them at sites like the NIH's, but didn't.) I keep more or less abreast of it for personal reasons. However, we have now pretty much isolated many of the ways an alcoholic's body responds differently to alcohol than someone who is able to process alcohol normally. Another poster has provided the effects. An alcoholic very quickly reaches a place where the absence of alcohol is experienced as physical pain. And the presence of it simply helps alleviate the pain without providing many of the pleasurable experiences non-alcoholics experience. Further some of the changes continue to progress even when the alcoholic breaks free of the addiction and stops drinking, which appears to be why alcoholics who start drinking again, even decades later, enter a later stage of the disease than where they left it rather than starting over again at the beginning.

Redemption for an alcoholic is freedom from the cycle of addiction that ends in death (and a pretty bloody, messy death at that). What you are proposing is not redemption, but a miracle of physical healing, that God change the body of an alcoholic so they no longer suffer from the disease at all. While miracles are certainly within God's realm, it does seem a little presumptuous to expect miracles for every redeemed alcoholic.

Also, I too found your statement that abstention is an American thing odd. Abstention (of a wide variety of things, including total abstention) can be found in many cultures and religions around the world throughout human history. Ours has a uniquely American flavor, true, but every cultural expression is different.

[Ol'Geezer]

Talk about “Stuck on stupid”! You can psychologize, philosophize, theologize and whateverologize you want to about a redeemed drunk – and I’m one – being redeemed to the point that he can return to the original starting point of his sin and now be able not to sin is to be “Stuck on stupid.” “Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’ ”” I abstain for the sheer joy of it. Never again, at least in this way, will I embarrass myself, my family, my friends, my employer nor my God. At least in this way I will not crucify my Savior again. Is there fear involved? Certainly! A godly fear that my old nature will again gain control in this area. As to enjoying all of God’s blessing, where is it written we are to do this? I’ve never enjoyed the blessing of material riches or that of that of material poverty. I’ve not enjoyed being the “sharpest knife in the drawer.” Likewise, for woodworking, athletics, and so forth. I’ve never enjoyed the blessing of nicotine (it’s a great pesticide). But I do enjoy the blessings of being chosen in Him, redeemed by Him, being co-heir with Him and all other spiritual blessings.

I beg any of you who have been delivered from drunkenness, don’t be deceived by this foolish talk that such redemption should include the liberty to return to the path that was leading to your eternal destruction in the first place. Please! Don’t get stuck on stupid!

[Steve McCoy]

Kevin, when I say "abstinence is a very American idea" I don't mean no one else talks about it or does it outside the US (Islam), and I'm not saying America developed the idea. I just mean it fits well with American thinking, and specifically with American church life (post-prohibition).

I'm thinking of psychology, overemphasis on addictions, overemphasis on drugs, underemphasis on people taking responsibility, underemphasis on sin, etc. Abstinence in our churches as American Christians seems to fit us as Christians who are often too American and not enough Christian.

I'm sure this is still too vague for you, but it's not a huge part of my thinking necessarily on this issue.

[Steve McCoy]

Ol' Geezer, my post hasn't told anyone to do anything. It simply questioned whether God is big enough to redeem alcoholics beyond abstention and toward drinking under control. Must abstention be the final answer, or can/does redemption go deeper?

I'm happy you have been redeemed and aren't drinking. That's wonderful. But please don't ascribe views to me that I'm not taking as if asking the questions alone makes me guilty of something. And please don't try to shut down a good conversation on a neglected topic. Thanks.

[Steve McCoy]

Scott (NOT Scott M), if you didn't see it, Leithart has a nice quote on wine in communion as it pertains to drunkenness.

[Scott M]

underemphasis on people taking responsibility

Huh??? Every credible recovery program I've seen requires the addict to take personal responsibility, face the wrongs they have done, redress them where possible, and all that that entails.

[Steve McCoy]

Scott M,

I'm talking about American culture bro. Where we never raise our kids wrong, where people don't kill people, guns kill people, etc.

I'm not going to get in this circle of watching everything nit picked in our comments. Let's try to stay on track.

[david]

wow, steve. great post. i'm not sure i agree, but i'm really not ready to disagree.

i had a conversation with a guy last night and we were talking about how it is just in our nature to take the good things God gives us and abuse them through misuse or excess. i think that's what you're talking about here.

on the genetic thing, man, the fall screwed up our genes. just look at us. so, yeah, some people are probably genetically predisposed toward alcoholism, homosexuality, etc... but, if i have the alcoholic gene and never take a drink, do i have the disease? i'm not sure this is an issue that can be discussed as either moral or genetic. i think its both.

anyway. i love the idea of redemption. can someone who has been a practicing homosexual be changed by Christ and enjoy a life of heterosexual intimacy within marriage? i'm not going to limit the power of the Holy SPirit and say no.

so, can someone who has lived a life of alcohol abuse be changed by Christ and enjoy a life of occasionally enjoying the fruit of the vine within the body of Christ? i'm not going to limit the power of the HS and say no... but maybe it's important to point out the role of the Christian community in this. we need to provide the boundaries for each other, and hold each other accountable, and come alongside each other as we see Christ redeeming every aspect of our lives together!

[Steve McCoy]

David, I think you make some excellent points.

[Jamie Arpin-Ricci]

Scott,

While I agree with the sentiment of this post, the challenge I would add would be that teaching this in the process of recovery, especially in the early stages, has been shown to be a "get out of sobriety free card" for far too many. I believe in the possibility that some can return responsibly to drinking, but I would be cautious how and where I would say that.

Interestingly, this same challenge applies to contextualization of culture. When working with First Nations (Native) communities, many reject everything of their traditional culture when coming to Christ, even though a great deal of it is beautiful and should be redeemed.

In the end, only a few have been willing to do so. However, later generations, whose personal distance from the negative aspects of their heritage is great, can explore contextualization more easily.

All this to say that I agree with your desire to affirm the power of God in redemption. I would simply add (as I am sure you would acknowledge) that knowing this to be true and putting it into practice is very different.

Thanks for putting yourself out there on these challenging issues.

Peace,
Jamie

[Ol'Geezer]

Steve, are you really serious?
“It simply questioned whether God is big enough to redeem alcoholics beyond abstention"
First, I didn’t know God had a size, but that’s another matter.
Second, God doesn’t redeem alcoholics, he redeems drunks. “Alcoholics” is a pseudo-scientific euphemism, designed as a cover for personal irresponsibility.
Third, there is only one redemption and is full redemption. The Bible admits to no degrees of redemption. At the same time the Bible clearly teaches that our full redemption awaits the Day of the Lord. Four, God is sovereign and can (could, would, has, may) bring some (all?) former drunks to a condition where they could imbibe alcohol without abuse, but since Scripture is not explicit in the matter (and it isn’t or there wouldn’t even be this discussion), nor is it even implicit toward a positive answer, then the only possible solution for determining an answer is to experientially put God to the test.

“But please don't ascribe views to me that I'm not taking as if asking the questions alone makes me guilty of something.”
Actually, I don’t think I ascribed any views to you, but having re-read the two sentences of the second paragraph of your original post I should have. What could make your views any clearer, irrespective of any other statements to the contrary?

“And please don't try to shut down a good conversation on a neglected topic.” Good conversation? I suppose so if one is into speculative worldly wisdom. Neglected topic? I suppose so if one doesn’t accept that the drunk shouldn’t return to the bottle. Shut down? Haaaa…..

[Joe Thorn]

Hey Ol' Geezer, You are getting pretty worked up. I think it's time for your meds. You attitude is disrespectful. I understand that this topic hits close to home for you, as it does for many of us who were drug/alcohol abusers in our past. But you are coming across volatile.

You are spouting "thus saith the Lord" without giving us Scripture beyond "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test."

Steve is not diving into worldly speculation and philosophy, in fact he is trying to steer the conversation to a biblical level, questioning some of the modern thinking on this topic. Questioning is good, because we always return to the Scripture for answers.

Those who have spent any length of time on this blog should know that most of the posts here are characterized by, "Hey, here is something to talk about - what do you guys think?" That is what this is.

[Marcguyver]

Wow, some serious heat out there!
Well, I had to put my .02$ in too.
I have to say that I agree with Ol' Geezer in essence, maybe not in the way he's doing it (but hey, aren't we all interested in a little vehement debate? If you're not passionate about it then it's boring right?) but I must say I think he's right on the ball. Addiction is addiction, and it's a choice! We and only we, are responsible for our choices. If I used every cop-out that is strewn throughout our culture right now then me AND MY BROTHERS would be drug addicted, wife abusing, alcoholic, thugs with no conscience or care about anything other than ourselves!! (Oh, and it wouldn't be our fault because "we were raised that way")
Alcohol to an alcoholic is like Methamphetamine to a drug addict! Come on...you can't go back to just 'have a little pinch' from time to time. Sure, there's nothing wrong with a Christian consuming alcohol, but for an alcoholic IT AIN'T JUST ALCOHOL, that's the point! It's his/her addiction and they've already proven that they can't go back to it.

Would you suggest for an instant that an addict go back to cocaine, meth, etc? Sure, these drugs are illegal, but what about medical marihuana? Would you tell an addict to go ahead and just have a couple of joints once and awhile with some friends because they have an actual medical need for it...knowing full well that they have already proven that they cannot control themselves with that particular article?

A wise man sees his weakness, turns from it, and never returns to it again to 'dabble' with it because he has already proven to himself that he cannot control it. If he's really lucky, he turns to Jesus and gets 'freed up' and finds a 'higher power' that he can now use to help cope with the things that he used drugs/alcohol on before.

As a Law Enforcement Officer, I can tell you that I've seen addict after addict after addict (whether alcohol, drugs, sex, whatever) and it's the very rare ones that actually have the guts to finally ADMIT THEIR PROBLEM and then, they even dig deeper to admit that they need help (kudos to you Ol' Geezer!) because left unto themselves, they will return to their former ways and habits, what I believe the bible calls, "Like a dog returning to its vomit." Unfortunately, I see the majority of these guys and gals go 'sober' for a while and sure enough they're back in it again in a couple years, months, sometimes just a couple weeks or even days later. Personnally I think it's because they can't get free from the stuff without going to God for help because we all know that's what the real answer is. So, that all being said, I think it's a slap in the face of God, and in the face of logic, to suggest that someone who has been through the miracle of this transformation return to their particular 'drug' of choice and see how deep they can get into the waters without drowning again.

P.S. This is obviously a touchy subject, but hey, let's be a little more thick skinned and remember the words of the great church father Augustine:
In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity! So as Christians, we don't have to divide over a topic like this, but we can vigorously debate it..........WHICH I LOVE!!

[Wes]

I don't think it is good to ask "Is our God BIG ENOUGH to change an alcholic?" (Or, if you prefer: a man once enslaved to drunkenness to the greatest extent.) Perhaps that has happened in some lives and God is glorified by it, but I don't believe that God has promised to free us wholly from the temptation of our greatest sins. So God is big enough, but he doesn't seem to work that way very often (i.e. changing a former alcholic into one that can keep beer in his fridge).

What is guaranteed for all believers is that we are freed from the wages of sin and that we will become slaves of righteousness (Rom 6-8), but not necessarily be freed of the temptations. For Paul himself, one of the most sanctified sinners ever to walk the earth, suffered greatly with fighting temptation (Rom. 7:15-25).

In referring to lust, Jesus said that we should rip out our eye if it causes us to sin or cut off a hand if it causes us to sin (Mat.5). This is likely hyperbole, but still he is instructing us to go to drastic measures to avoid sin. "Love righteousness so much that you would sacrifice greatly to avoid sin." Which is more necessary for living a redeemed life: a right eye, a right hand, or a beer? If it is actually suggested to give up the first two if needed, surely there is nothing wrong with giving up the third. The evidence of redemption is NOT that we are so "redeemed" that we no longer sin with our hand or our eye, but that we would hate sin and love Christ so much as to consider going to such drastic measures.

If I knew a former-alcholic-turned-Christ-follower who wanted to have a drink and test his sanctification, there would at least have to be some candid honesty and accountability after that drink. But before that, I would have to ask him "Why do you want to take this risk? There is certainly much to lose. What is there to gain?"

There are a hundred other things to drink with a thankful heart that won't tempt you to fall back into sin. Why can't you drink those others with a thankful heart and just be content with that? Does God encourage us to swim in dangerous waters if there is little to gain by such an act? I can't think of anything scriptural to support that. Can you? Or perhaps you think that there is more to gain by such a "redeemed man" than I realize.

Also, why isn't there more Scripture quoting and trading going on? How can this be a fruitful conversation without it?

[Bob Robinson]

Ol'Geezer says, "there is only one redemption and is full redemption. The Bible admits to no degrees of redemption. At the same time the Bible clearly teaches that our full redemption awaits the Day of the Lord."

I don't agree with that one. The Day of the Lord, in my understanding, began with the first coming of the Lord and will be consumated at His second coming. We live in the time, as I said above, of the "already/not yet" of redemption--when the Kingdom of God is both already "upon us" and is still "coming". Jesus has already inaugurated the Kingdom of God and all its redemption and he will bring His Kingdom in all its fullness when he returns.

So, yes, there are "degrees of redemption." We see people redeemed and on their way toward full redemption. And we see all of Creation BEING redeemed by degrees as we, His People, are a redemptive people.

I know that my Reformed Theology is showing through here (but, hey, we are at the blog, REFORMissionary!). Flowing out of our personal redemption and our commitment that Christ is Lord over everything, it is our joy to participate with God in His cosmic redemption of all of Creation (including the gift of alcohol [Deut. 14:26]).

[Marcguyver]

Hey Wes, great post and excellent points. I think I will add the following and would love to hear more comments:

Mr. McCoy look, right up front, I have to agree that you are taking a very bold, and commendable, step by raising some very thought provoking questions and topics. I think this type of leadership is needed more in America, especially in our churches.

I think it's safe to say that the bible is clear about the consumption of alcohol, "...don't consume to the point of drunkenness." Other sins, lifestyles, and inappropriate actions are listed as simply 'not to be done' at all, period.

I do believe that all things are possible through the amazing power of God however, I'm not sure that I'd advise a former alcoholic to come over for a few drinks and watch the game. Well...I'll go so far as to say that I just don't do it. I have just a couple of friends that I know are tempted by the 'fire-water' and I don't even offer it to them or drink it around them period. Why tempt 'em?

The funny thing is this, I'm having a hard time finding any other 'item' that is not sinful to do but that can easily lead to sin like alcohol can.
I suppose going to the beach isn't sinful, but then again all those bikinis sure could lead one to lust.
Being a cashier isn't sinful, but handling all that money sure could lead one to skimming a few dollars off the top if you're a kleptomaniac.
Enjoying a good meal isn't wrong but it sure could lead one to gluttony (which could easily be discussed as well, as it appears to be rampant in our society).
Hanging around a playground isn't sinful, but it sure could lead to sin if you're a former molestor, (hence the reason their release conditions forbid them to frequent these areas).

I don't see anywhere that the Bible makes the excuse for people's actions by stating that they have some sort of 'disease' and can't help themselves. Homosexuals aren't excused because they are 'predisposed' to that lifestyle anymore than drunkards are excused because they're parents were drunks. In the same way, I can't make excuses for my own deceit, lying, anger, lust, selfishness, etc I simply have to call it what it is, SIN, and then repent of my wrongful behavior. Ultimately it always comes down to me....my choices, my actions, my decisions to either chose righteousness and life, or sin and destruction.

So, if I'm arrested, convicted, and eventually release from prison for murder, assault, theft, whatever...does it mean that I'm going to return to that lifestyle? Of course not. What if I had a true conversion experience while incarcerated and now attempt to bring other inmates to Christ while working with my local church?
However, would I still be considered a convicted felon? Yes. Would I suffer the consequences for my actions for the rest of my life? Yes. Would I even possibly have to continue to work at my 'areas of weakness' as well? You bet. And rightfully so. After all, I did murder someone, or committed a robbery, or whatever. My repentance doesn't change the fact that I made some choices that most law abiding citizens never make. I crosed a line that most never will. And if I become an addict to a drug, like alcohol, I again have crossed a line that most never will and I have proven to myself that I will return to those bad choices and decisions if I return to that particular substance, those particular set of friends, that particular lifestyle, etc.

I think God can, and has for centuries, proven that he is able to deliver and 'free up' all sorts of us sinners. However, he has also shown that a wise man than starts building his house upon the rock and doesn't return to the foundations of sand that started his ruin in the first place.

[D.R. Randle]

Steve, sorry I haven't answered your questions on your comment to me until now, but I have been really busy.

Anyway, to question one, I would say, yeah that SOUNDS great, but is that what God is necessarily calling us to? Isn't holiness what we are called to, not engaging in ever single activity that we can in order to enjoy His gifts even more? We can glorify God by enjoying Him forever without having to engage in moderation something that we had previously been under bondage to.

I will give an example. If you are "addicted" to internet pornography, should you give up the internet completely? I would say, maybe, yes for a while. But after some time, you might feel strong enough to use it again. Still, however, you should install some type of filter like Covenant Eyes or something to give you accountability. You could say, "I don't want to do that because I have to be able to face my temptation and overcome it." Yet, you have opened yourself to the possibility of temptation when you didn't have to. And it may be that abstaining completely is the best thing period. Not because you can't handle it, but because it is best to avoid any possibility of temptation. Same thing would apply to spending time alone with a girl if you are single and in the past fell in regard to sexual purity. Its a temptation that is best avoided, not necessarily placed upon you to see if you have strengthed enough to stand in that situation.

And for question 2, I recognize that Paul's weakness could be anything. It could be a penchant for sin, it could have been a physical ailment. But he uses the same word for "weak, weakness" in both instances. And in both places he leaves open the possibilities of what weakness he has in mind. I therefore think that we can apply one passage to the other.

In regard to the addiction/abuse and freedom/liberty discussion, I would say that while Christ does indeed free us from sin and redeem our nature, He still calls us to avoid temptation. We are "already, but not yet" fully redeemed. We are "already, but not yet" made holy. That means that while Christ has given us the ability to overcome all sin, we still struggle with it (see Romans 7). We still must fight with indwelling sin. And often times the best way to not sin is to avoid practices and places that lead us to contemplate sinning again.

[Joe Thorn]

Just thinking out loud here, so please, put down the nine inch nails... ;)

How should we think of 1 Cor. 10:13 in terms of all the discussion of "temptation?"

Also, many of those in recovery programs who leave alcohol behind merely replace one addiction with another. I don't see redemtion in that at all. It may be a better situation for a person in terms of quality of life. But redemption? Deliverance?

Was there deliverance for the "alcoholic" prior to the modern approaches to recovery? Did God release drunks from drunkenness, and perhaps worse, alcohlics from their sin by bringing them into a church that used wine weekly in worship? What about in the days of Christ? Did repentant alcoholics abstain from all wine?

[Steve McCoy]

I'm not going to respond to each comment, there are too many to do that. A few things.

1. This isn't about God freeing us from our "temptations," but freeing us from falling to our temptations. I think few commenters have noticed that distinction.

2. On plucking out eyes. I wholly agree with the seriousness of sin and need to avoid it. But that's not my point. I agree that if you are an "alcoholic," please avoid sin! At all costs! I'm not arguing against that. My point is, can God get alcoholics to the point where a beer doesn't cause them to sin?

I'm not trying to be terribly practical in this post or comments. I understand the desire to do that. This has more to do with the extent of pre-glory redemption. Does progressive sanctification go this far?

3. Please, in your comments, don't talk about this as if my point is that we should watch a football game, invite over my alcoholic friend, and encourage them to drink. I'm not even coming close to saying that.

4. On holiness. Here's my beef with the teetotaler's 'wine isn't necessary for life' argument, as if it's only as important as coffee or pizza or something. In the Bible wine is not a side issue. It is central. Not only to everyday life, but also to worship. It's used in sacrifices in the OT (Ex 29: 38, 40), it's called a blessing of God (Ps 104:14-15), it symbolizes messianic blessings (Is 25:6), and is used in the Lord's Supper by Jesus (Mt 26:27-29) that we are all to enjoy.

I agree that people truly addicted to alcohol should stop unless they have accountability and believe the Lord has changed them. And I'm not saying an alcoholic should ever drink again, maybe not. What I am saying is let's not act like alcohol is some unimportant side issue in the Scriptures.

[Scott Lamb]

As Mark Twain once said,...
"Giving up smoking is the easiest thing in the world. I know because I've done it thousands of times."

[Wes]

Steve,
Referring to your fourth point:
I think it is an overstatement to say that wine is central to the Bible. Sure it's referred to often, but it's not central. If wine is central then it might be a sin not to drink wine, right?

Recall, Mohler's argument from the recent forum that wine was so often the drink of choice b/c it was the next best subsitute for clean water. Is that argument totally worthless to you? Honestly, I'm asking. I don't have time to research it's credibility. But if he's right, then maybe that is why wine is often used as a symbol in the Bible--because everybody has access to it and everybody knows what it is. I still see wine as a cultural thing, not something central to the Bible.

Personally, I don't claim that wine is unnecessary for life because I'm a teetotaler. I'm not a teetotaler. I claim that it is unnecessary because I count all things as loss compared to the greatness of knowing Christ. If wine causes me to sin, then I don't really feel like I'm missing out on much by completely abstaining for the rest of my life. To me in 2005 AD wine is on the same level as coffee or pizza. But I'm willing to recant if necessary.

[Wes]

...or even if wine doesn't cause me to sin, I don't really see that I'm missing out on much if I don't drink wine or other alcoholic drinks. What if I don't like the taste? Are you implying that there's a biblical mandate to make wine a part of your life (barring any exceptional circumstances)?

[Joe Thorn]

Wes, you are misapplying Phil 3.

Also, if we take the time to read how God and the biblical authors speak of the blessings of wine, you see that it goes far beyond cultural adaptation. It isn't depicted as a necessity, but as a blessing. There's an important difference.

Do we have to drink wine? Let me ask you this, do we have to drink grape juice? I'm asking. As a Christian, do you have to drink grape juice? (Think communion).

[Steve McCoy]

Wes, you loathed the lack of Scripture in the comments. So I gave you four positive passages for the fourth point and now you disagree to the exact point the Scriptures make without dealing with the Scriptures. All you do is point to a view proposed by others that you don't know is true and admit you don't care to find out. It's like you just said you really hope they are right because the possibility of doubt they might give is enough for you.

And I didn't say wine is central to the Scriptures, but worship. OT sacrifices it's there. NT communion it's there.

[JP]

Paul weighed in on this discussion:

"Having nothing to do with fooloish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels." 2 Tim 2:23

[Steve McCoy]

Josh, would you like to elaborate how what Paul was talking about fits the context of our discussion here? How is a dialogue on the extent of sanctification a "foolish, ignorant controversy?" You do realize there are important controversies, right?

Also, I don't want to assume that you, by stopping by and verse bombing my site, intend to be rude. But it sure looks that way. I hope you will attempt to remedy that.

[Wes]

Joe,
I think you're right about Phil 3. Thanks. Bad idea to quote that off the top of my head.

About communion, I guess we drink the juice of grapes b/c that's what Jesus did and we want to imitate him. Yeah, we should try to imitate what was done at the Last Supper. Maybe Welch's is close enough. Maybe not. I haven't really thought about it much before.

Steve,
You did say that wine is central IN the Bible. I was incorrect to paraphrase you as saying "wine is central TO the Bible."

I'm thankful for your Scripture references.
But if Mohler's argument is true, then it does put a slightly different twist on the Scriptures that you quoted. That's why I referenced to him. And it's not true that I don't care to research if Mohler is right. Rather, I don't feel like it's an important enough of an issue to run out and buy a couple of books right now. Personally, there's just a few more important things laid on my heart currently. I think alcohol (intertwined with sanctification andlegalism) is an important issue, but not at the top of the list for me right now.

I referred to Mohler's argument about wine (it being the only clean source of water in that day) to get your take on it, not to use it as a tool for persuasion. Do you find it completely lacking in merit or just irrelevant? (Pardon, if you've already expressed your opinion, and I missed it.) I figure you might be a reliable source and so I asked.

I get the impression that you think I disagree with you on this whole topic of drinking, when really I'm just searching to find the right place to stand.

[Steve McCoy]

Wes,

To be clear, I'm not trying to say wine is central IN or TO Scripture, but IN Scripture TO WORSHIP. That's undeniable. Do we agree there or not? I'm not trying to nit pick words, but make sure you get my point, and you haven't made clear that you have.

On Mohler's points, I'm not convinced by any of it fully. I'm fine in saying wine was better than bad water, or whatever. But that's not an argument for the abstention of alcohol once we can purify water. It's not an argument about or against consumption at all. Especially since wine is not just a cultural reality, but a worship reality.

Also, as far as I can tell, all of Mohler's discussion on this part of the issue comes from extra-biblical sources. Those are helpful for us, but they are not authoritative and must be understood through the lens of Scripture.

And certainly nothing I've read or studied has even caused me to question that Jesus might have served the disciples grape juice at the Last Supper. It was wine. If you want to take "fruit of the vine" literally, you have to say they were popping grapes, and I don't think that's what they were doing.

I appreciate the fact you are really searching here Wes. I hope my post and this thread is somehow helpful. I encourage you to read God Made Wine and/or Drinking With Calvin and Luther for more.

[alice inman]

This question on alcohol has been raised for many, many years among believers in our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. My brother n law, a medical researcher, is presently working on a curefor aids, and is a true believer in our Lord, wrote a book back in the seventies entitled, Wine in the Bible. He was a young believer then and I am certain that he would polish his writings today if he had the time, but as a young adult, he had many questions so he began to do research on this subject. Before him there were many authors writing on this subject and there will be and have been many authors writing since. One thought that I have for myself is while raising my four children, is it possible that I might be strong in one area and my children may be stong in others, yet I may be weak in one area and they be weak in other areas. So, while I would be able to limit my consumption, one of them may not be able to limit their consumption, so why toy with something that might become a real stumbling block for one of my children of whom I would give my life?

May God Bless You Steve.

[Steve McCoy]

Alice, I appreciate your maternal desires, and we think about those questions as well at my house. I realize your comments are a little more general and not to this post in particular, but I'm happy to respond briefly.

I don't tend think about defending my kids from positive things like alcohol (the Bible speaks of alcohol positively, and abuse negatively). So I think it's better to approach child rearing positively, to raise children to be strong. Doug Wilson says with the Church's push for abstinence from alcohol some have made weakness a lifestyle, and I think his is right on.

And how better to help them not have weakness in entering adulthood than to have a lifetime of watching alcohol treated as a gift of God to be enjoyed with proper restraint.

It's like with food, or sex, or any good gift of God. If I never tell my kids about sex (for example), and explain to them how it is to be enjoyed for God's glory and purposes, someone else will tell them the wrong stuff. They are more likely to abuse at that point. But in my home we try to be open about sexual issues as they already have started to crop up. We proactively and reactively are teaching them that sex is a great thing, what it's for, and what it's NOT for.

So while I understand and agree with your desire to thwart possible weaknesses in your children, I think the best way to thwart them isn't to abstain, but to enjoy in a biblical way.

[J. Clark]

17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 Whoever serves the Messiah in this way is acceptable to God and approved by men.
Romans 14:17-18 (HCSB)

and of course "Be drunk in the Spirit"

[Gary Davison]

Steve, I see the point, or at least I am hopeful I do, you are making. I can agree with some of the conversation--I think that alcohol is one of many gifts from God that mankind abuses, total abstinence, in my opinion, is a personal thing, the Bible says that we anything we do against our own conscience is sin. I think the arguement or idea stands in both directions as long as we are "doing all to the glory of God" either teaching to enjoy God's gifts in a biblical way or abstaining in a biblical way. The Bible has warnings about the potential of alcohol abuse, so I think that it goes back to, your conscience. Desiring God has this stance on alcohol and church membership, which I agree with whole-heartedly.(http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/81/100481p.html)

Thanks for the interesting dialogue!

[Wes]

Steve,
It's undeniable that wine was an integral part of the sacrifices; it's central to the Lord's Supper, and it was explicitly noted as a blessing on his chosen people in the OT. But I am yet to be convinced that wine is "central in Scripture to worship." That seems a little too broad and all-encompassing to me.

[Steve McCoy]

Wes, this is getting annoying. I'm not going to argue over words with you anymore. If you want to feel better by not fully agreeing, whatever. It's not just a blessing in the OT, but a prescribed sacrifice and it's in the Lord's Supper. These are undeniable Scriptural teachings, and means that gathered worship in OT and NT are missing something without wine.

If you want to get back to the point, this means that wine is not just a pizza or coke issue. It's vastly different, and that should color how we discuss it as a part of Christian life. Can we agree there?

[Tim]

According to this story, a doctor has determined that signficant beer or alcohol consumption (except for red wine) increases the risk of colorectal cancer.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3392404

I'm really not trying to make any kind of point. I just came across it and thought it was interesting in light of the recent discussions going on here.

[Joe Thorn]

Tim,

1. (and this is for others too) Can you guys figure out how to add a link properly to people's comments section? ;)

2. This link is at best unhelpful to the discussion, but I really think it hurts it. We are not talking about "significant" intake of beer/alcohol. The topic here centers around redemption, sanctification and the issue of alcoholism.

[Tim]

Joe,

Sorry about the link. I tried to hyperlink it but couldn't get it right. I apologize for being link-challenged.

And it wasn't my intention to hurt the discussion. I realize what the topic at hand is, and I'm also fully aware of studies that suggest alcohol consumption actually has health benefits. I just got a kick out of the story after what I've been reading here and thought others might as well. If Steve wants to take the link down, he can go right ahead and do so.

[Joe Thorn]

I was just busting your chops about your linking methods. And I know you weren't trying to make a point at all, but some on this post have a hard time staying on topic. doubt Steve'll take it down. No real big deal.

[Wes]

Is anybody else having a deja vu moment after reading Marcguyver's latest post?

Steve,
I really don't think it's an argument over mere words. I'm sorry that you are getting annoyed. Maybe you should have a glass of wine before you read my posts.

I do not agree that today's worship gatherings are missing something by abstaining from wine, with the exception being observance of the Lord's Supper. But even there, I don't plan to make it a big issue at my church, where we drink Welch's.

Thanks for the discussion. Maybe I'll check out one of those books that you recommended.

[Marcguyver]

So Steve, solve the problem and use wine in your services then. Are you worried about what the congregation's response might be?

I thought you started this post asking about whether or not God could redeem someone who is an actual alcoholic and then they could be freed up enough to consume alcohol again without it ever being a problem???

You like wine in service....well make a command decision and put it back in your church then. If you think God can redeem alcoholics to complete freedom, then pray for them and let them have some of the wine during communion (I doubt any of them truly interested in staying free and sober would ablige you...)and do an in house study and see how many get back on the liquor wagon and how many stay sober.

P.S.
Didn't get any response from you on previous post so I thought I would remind you of my commments

[Steve McCoy]

Marc, I don't always respond to all comments and often answer the points of one with responses to others. I'm happy to respond to this one.

I've said before that I'm not so concerned with the practical issues in this thread, but rather the theological/spiritual ones. So your put-it-into-practice comment isn't helpful.

But while on the practical side, I do think Baptists should start using wine in communion again. But change takes time and teaching. And I'm not about to put people in danger and then find out who falls off the wagon. I think it's silly you would imply I would even find that acceptable, and I don't even find it funny.

[Marcguyver]

Well....I guess I'm lost then. I sure thought most of my comments to your original question did deal with the "theological/spiritual" side of the issue.
I realize that you now think I'm 'patronizing' you or something but you are the one that has been insistent that wine needs to be put back into our corporate meetings.
All I've done is give you my reasoning as to why I think this is a bad idea and why I also believe that it is a bad idea to try and get a former addict into a position that allows him to just have a 'glass' once and awhile.
Kind of an oxymoron I think, if they could have just one 'glass' once and awhile than they would never be called an alcoholic and need deliverance in the first place.
Let's face it, if wine was brought back into our 'acts of worship' then what kind of 'issues' would that bring to those that do refuse to do drink it? Would they then believe they are less of a 'Christian' than the rest of the congregation?

[Richard A. Bailey]

Steve, just returned from a little wine and cheese social after distributing wine to the body of Christ during communion and saw this thread was still alive. You rock, man. And, I for one, appreciate the ways in which you sometimes exercise the discipline of silence when it comes to some of our comments. Hope your services tomorrow honor God even if you don't pour wine into the cup (or all those little cups for that matter, which is a completely different and equally important theological discussion for Baptists to entertain).

[Steve McCoy]

Richard, very good point and I'd love to discuss it sometime. How about over some orange peel shrimp in the 'Ville. Dang. Thanks for the encouragement.

Marc, I don't find your position or arguments compelling. You have said this is "your reasoning" and I'm not interested in yours, nor mine. I've brought up biblical texts on it and I think the Bible is pretty doggone clear.

Now you are making leaps in logic about whether I should be testing alcoholics as to whether they can remain sober after communion. If you want to deal with this biblically, go for it. If you want to keep going the direction you are going, there are plenty of blogs who need more readers.

[Marcguyver]

Okay, okay...time out!
I do believe that I remember saying once: "Mr. McCoy look, right up front, I have to agree that you are taking a very bold, and commendable, step by raising some very thought provoking questions and topics. I think this type of leadership is needed more in America, especially in our churches."
I seem to also remember saying:
"P.S. This is obviously a touchy subject, but hey, let's be a little more thick skinned and remember the words of the great church father Augustine:
In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity! So as Christians, we don't have to divide over a topic like this, but we can vigorously debate it..........WHICH I LOVE!!"

So now, how important is 'unleavened bread' for Christians today, in light of how much we should be 'esteeming' wine?
If Christ used wine and unleavened bread as symbols of 'remembrance' of his broken body and shed blood, how important is it for us to make sure that the symbols we continue to use during communion today, also be as close to or the same as what He used?

By the way, yes these are my comments and opinions, but I base most of my ideas and beliefs off of my interpretation of scripture and how it should be applied to the Christian walk as it appears that you do as well.