The Big, Drunk Elephant in the Room

A cross-examination

Since I’ve spent the last 10 days fielding messages (most of them pleasant even in disagreement, a few quite ugly) on the Think Deeper Podcast episode on alcohol, I figure it’s about time to write out one final summary of the issue and then move on.

Our position

If you didn’t catch the episode, here’s the brief rundown:

We hold that drunkenness is a sin. We hold that making a brother stumble is a sin. However, we do not hold that all drinking is automatically a sin.

We believe these three tenets are derived directly from Paul when he commanded Christians to not get drunk (Ephesians 5:18), when he said not to do anything that makes a brother stumble (Romans 14:21), and when he added drinking wine to that pivotal chapter on matters of opinion and liberty (also Romans 14:21).

Because of this, we reject the redefining of “drunk” as “one drop drunk” or “beginning the process of becoming drunk” as assumptions that run against the plain reading of the text.

However, we strongly recommend the avoidance of alcohol. We do not partake of it ourselves, and we view it as a dangerous practice.

You are free to disagree at any point along the way there. Many have thoughtfully and courteously done so, and this article is not about them.

However, I would like to perform a cross examination as to why we have come out of this labeled some kind of heretics in certain circles. I think it makes an interesting case study on priorities being wildly out of whack.

“This is false doctrine”

The terms “false teacher” and “false doctrine” have been lobbed, and it is downright stunning how casually those get tossed around. That is not a term for someone who might be wrong on a secondary issue. That is a term for someone who has abandoned the Gospel and is leading people to hell.

And if you determine we are worthy of the accusation, the actions taken as a result have not been terribly encouraging. “You teach false doctrine, jeopardizing your own soul and countless others, so… I’m going to unfriend you on Facebook. I’m going to uninvite you from an event. No hard feelings though!”

I disagree with the accusation, but if you’re going to stand by it at least have the love and the courage to act in a way befitting the gravity of it all.

“Focus Press supports drinking alcohol”

One brother posted that he no longer recommends Think Deeper (no problem there) because “they support drinking alcohol (big problem). That’s called slander.

Two weeks ago we ranted against corporations like Disney, urged boycotts, and said it was highly unwise to have a Disney+ subscription for your family—but admitted it’s not technically a sin if you do. Last week we ranted against the dangers of alcohol, urged boycotts, and said it was highly unwise to consume it—but it’s not technically a sin if you do.

In other words, we support drinking about as much as we support driving to Orlando and putting on a pair of mouse ears.

And yet, two weeks ago we were blasted for “binding where the Bible hasn’t bound” in our condemnation of Disney. Then, last week we were blasted for “supporting drinking alcohol.” I’ll let you make sense of that for yourself. For me, it’s called bearing false witness and slandering your brothers.

“This is the position of people who just want to get away with stuff.”

Yes, three guys who can’t tell you what beer tastes like are trying to find a loophole for a sin they don’t want to commit. Again, a dangerously false accusation, and a total distraction from the debate at hand.

“Not a single positive thing to say”

In the process of studying this issue I have found at least two pieces of content from brothers in the church that say the Bible does not say a single good thing about wine. Remember before what I’m about to say, I am neither a defender or consumer of alcohol. However…

That claim is just false.

Let’s set aside the wedding at Cana and Timothy’s stomach and any other text which can be construed as grape juice.

And we don’t have to get into the fact that those under a Nazarite vow had to abstain from grapes, wine, and strong drink (Numbers 6:1-21)—clearly setting them apart from everybody else, who must not have been abstaining. Or that priests were forbidden to drink wine while serving, which means… etc etc.

We don’t have time to debate verses like Psalm 104:15 or Ecclesiastes 9:17 and 10:19, which sure don’t seem to be speaking of grape juice.

Instead, let’s focus on the fact that Proverbs 31:6 recommends wine and strong drink for those who are perishing and for “those whose life is bitter” (NASB). The Bible literally says to give it to them. There’s your one positive thing it has to say.

But the blanket-ness of the statement shows a conclusion has been assumed and asserted, and all further debate will be ignored.

Tyranny of the conscience

To revisit Romans 14, Paul lays out that on certain issues the individual’s conscience is the arbiter of right and wrong (14:23). To one brother, there is liberty to act, to the other there is not.

Each is accountable to God, and each has but two requirements placed on them: both are told not to violate their own conscience. Then, the brother with liberty is not to flaunt his liberty and make the other stumble (14:13-21). And, the brother with the narrower interpretation is not to force the brother with liberty to conform to his own standard (14:3-10).

In this instance, the brother who drinks claims liberty, and the other claims restriction. Paul tells the drinker not to make the other stumble by drinking in fron tof him. And he tells the teetotaler not to force everybody to conform to his standard. But the latter is exactly what’s happened here - and the real kicker is that Paul explicitly names the drinking of wine as one of these issues (14:21)

Let me say that again: the people willing to cast stones and disfellowship over the idea that another Christian might drink are in direct violation of Romans 14.

That is a significant issue for which I’ve yet to hear an explanation.

A matter of priorities

Jesus sharply rebuked the Pharisees for their dedication to protocol at the expense of the weightier matters, and I can’t help but feel that’s what’s at play here.

Slandering fellow Christians and binding one’s conscience on others is a way bigger deal than interpreting “become drunk” as “become drunk” rather than “begin the process of becoming drunk.” Yet you wouldn’t know it from the response.

It all exposes a dangerous hermeneutic in which misunderstanding a difficult subject is far more egregious than failing to love and bear with a brother.

That’s all I’ve got, and since I’m turning the page on the matter comments will be off this time. Thanks to all who have kindly engaged so far.