Pages

Monday, October 28, 2013

Is Drinking Wine Sinful?

Well of course not! However, some of my Christian brethren are confused on this matter having been leavened by the false teaching of a pernicious ascetic element which arose in both the Catholic Church and later within some sects of Protestantism. Below are my remarks in argumentation with a pastor friend of mine in regards to this matter. I do not include his private remarks but he gives the usual Protestant song and dance as to why drinking any alcohol at all is sinful. What follows are my remarks related to the drinking of alcohol and not my broader remarks before and after as part of the overall conversation thread. The discussion of alcohol being sin or not came up as a result of a broader discussion on the topic of God's people chronically tending to project their own personal and cultural biases onto their interpretations of God's Word and how they proceed to practice their faith accordingly. Knowing he is fundamentally opposed to any alcohol consumption whatsoever I realized this was a perfect example of this wholly human phenomenon to which I was referring.

***, if there are not ever alternate interpretations of God's word by people who believe they are right then please explain how YOUR generation invented out of thin air or at least continued to promulgate what you culturally inherited of the lie that Jesus never drank wine and that drinking alcohol is taboo or in any way a no-no! Are you going to tell me with a straight face that Protestant tradition is not a cultural invention of man, in particular, a relic of your generation's time and place, projected onto God's word and with a bit of creative stretching made to seem like actual scripture when in fact it is a false history and a false teaching rooted in legalism? I agree with you that God has one meaning in what He says (except when He has more than one meaning in what He is saying). My point is that we all (including YOU), tend to subconsciously project our own baggage into these discussions, be it generational baggage, or gender baggage or political baggage or social status baggage or sectarian cultural baggage. And you still have not responded to large segments of my previous remarks. You still don't know what it is you are even arguing against of the article that started this discussion in the first place. That is the primary problem here. In continuing to do that you are bringing a knife to a gun fight metaphorically-speaking.
***, I brought this topic up to make my point and you have finished my point as I anticipated and intended. Although I undoubtedly have my generational biases they are not manifested here as they are with you. Your views on alcohol which were shared by Grandpa McGee and my remaining Grandma Noyes and all of your particular sect of Protestantism are views that did not exist over most of the history of God's church (until various extremist sects of Protestantism came about such as the Puritans and Quakers and some Methodists and other assorted holiness movements). This is so for good reason as there is no foundation for this alcohol phobia in sound doctrine, archaeology, history, or logic and reason. The only "juice of the grape" that any ancient societies produced from grapes was wine. NOBODY dabbled in grape juice for multiple reasons not the least of which is the little matter of grape juice being perishable (there was NO refrigeration) and there being no preservatives aside from fermentation itself. There is NO factual/empirical evidence that anybody in that part of the world or anywhere else on Earth where grapes were grown (which is basically anywhere on Earth there was civilization) ever made grape juice and not wine. In fact, the very types of grapes being grown were grapes bred for wine, NOT raw juice and not table grapes for eating (in other words, NO Welches).
However, this is all superfluous when compared to the doctrinal gyrations that your generation (and those holiness movements) had to make in order to create this legalistic myth or rather perpetuate the older preexisting myth. You and your segment of your generation seem to confuse drinking alcohol in excess with drinking any alcohol at all. How did this come to be? You don't seem to mistake gluttony and basic eating or compulsive sexuality and sex in general! In reference to Psalms 104:15 please explain to me how Welches grape juice makes glad the heart of man!? I've had plenty of grape juice and never received that effect. The entire story of Christ making wine of water makes absolutely NO sense if it is grape juice. If it is not grape juice but rather wine he made then how is all alcohol inherently bad if our Creator and Savior is not only making wine but making really excellent wine and being complimented for it? Please explain to me the logic behind Christ being accused of being a winebibber if he was only drinking grape juice?! That would be utterly illogical and nonsensical were that the case which it is not. Following that logic we would have to conclude that the gluttony charge suggested he was not eating actual food for the same line of reasoning to be consistently maintained. How does any of that make any sense?
As for yeast in bread-making being symbolic of evil, that is so and yet it is only a symbol. Yeast is not actually inherently evil as evidenced by you eating fermented dough throughout your life without being corrupted by it. However, you had to contort and stretch quite a bit to connect fermented dough and it's Biblical symbology of sin with fermentation of grape juice which is not even Biblically referenced as symbolic of sin which is worth noting in light of your belief that all alcohol is evil don't you think? Why isn't fermentation of fruit (or wheat or hops or anything else the like) associated with sin but fermentation of dough (a food product) is? That is not an arbitrary coincidence my friend. Yet it another inconvenient fact that gives the lie to the legalistic false teaching that some extremist Protestant sects leavened into God's Church a few centuries ago and continues to be promulgated by some individuals and congregations and denominations.
You state (quite correctly) that we should take God's word "at absolute face value". However, you aren't obeying that if you are encouraging people to disobey God's edict to enjoy the things He has created for us to enjoy as He stated in I Timonthy 6:17. Psalms 104:15 if taken "at absolute face value" makes it clear that He has given us wine to enjoy. Yet your unsupported teaching on this DOES NOT submit and accept and adhere to God's word "at absolute face value". That means you and others who are like-minded are interpreting God's Word arbitrarily to fit your own personal and group mores and values as handed down to you from previous generations through various mental-emotional and cultural filters. It is fine to not wish to drink alcohol yourselves. To forbid other people from doing it is not acceptable. To suggest you are speaking for God in this matter is adding words to his Word and placing words in His mouth which He never uttered.
If as you suggest we are to mindlessly and without questioning what He means follow a path of "simple acceptance at absolute face value God's high, holy, happy, Heaven-sent Word" then why are you not out burning witches alive as God's Word commands in the Old Testament if followed in a non-interpretive "simple acceptance at absolute face value" of his command "I suffer not a witch to live?" I know what your answer will be and you will be quite correct which thus proves my point.
My point is that in real life on this Earth with all the complexity of human nature and the human experience as well as God's inestimable complexity and unfathomable greatness the truth and understanding of truth and how it applies "where the rubber meets the road" is so very much more complex and layered and nuanced than trite, hackneyed, jingoistic, one-dimensional, close-minded and overly-simplistic interpretations and explanations of reality and truth and sound doctrine can account and even begin to understand without God anointing us with wisdom and understanding and insight and at times revelations and epiphanies. The more we think we know the more we probably don't know. We need to beware getting stuck in our own thinking and walling off learning more and growing and ultimately becoming intellectually and mentally-emotionally and spiritually constipated and ultimately moribund. I have already lived in that sort of necrotic constipation but have been given release from it and never wish to go back to it.
This latter quote from my remarks tonight on Facebook comes in response to a sister in Christ who came upon this debate and made a few remarks that were largely neutral which was appropriate on her part.

...myself and *** love each other and are arguing as spiritual father and son... at least that is how I realize it and appreciate it and I hope he does as well. However, I also don't pull punches when accused of carnality. If I am condemned I will gladly fall on my sword. If, however, I am falsely accused, especially in regards to something that is a hot-button issue with me as legalism is then I am prone to throw an elbow or two along the way if the initiator of the allegation is playing rough and tumble, too. I can give as good as I can take. When I speak to *** on these things I am speaking as much to his entire generation and that entire Protestant tradition and collection of sects of Protestant Christianity whose legacy is mixed at best with some great theologians and leaders and their writings but also a long legacy of legalism and apocalyptic millenarian darkness that was the antipode to the carnal excesses of the Catholic Church. Extremism and reactionary movements are hardly ever a good thing. Another irony in this topic is that the concept of Christian hedonism is not a contradiction in terms as would seem to be the case if one is to blindly adhere to the more dour traditions of some of the more extremist elements of Protestantism. However, in reality Asceticism is not not a particularly Christian (until the Catholics popularized it) or even Jewish practice with some notable exceptions like the Nazarites. On the whole, Asceticism is more rooted in pagan Greek Stoicism in the context of Western Civilization not to mention the teachings of Hinduism and Buddhism and Zoroastrianism and such further east.


10 comments:

  1. A great post, with one exception... the Catholic Church has never disavowed drinking. After all, we use wine during our celebration of the Eucharist every single mass and have since the beginning. The wine is turned to the sacred blood of Christ and is drunk by any Catholic who wishes to do so. Regardless, the priest imbibes this blood every mass.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lin, you are spot on regarding that and it was that Catholic embracing of wine-drinking that I believe at least in part fueled the Protestant aversion to it as they viewed it as "too" Catholic and in trying to differentiate themselves from the Catholics and what they saw as sometimes Catholic permissiveness (and there was certainly a great deal of that over the course of the history of the Church) they went on to "throw out the baby with the bathwater" in creating this artificial restriction much like the Catholic dietary restrictions.

    As for my mention of the Catholic Church I was referring to the Ascetic Movements and Orders and famous practitioners and advocates of such living whom existed within the Church during its history which are well-known. I realize that even practitioners of Asceticism even drank wine (if their order permitted it) given all the great wine that was produced at monasteries over the course of Church history.

    I was referring to Protestants when talking about legalistic tea-totaling but about Asceticism generally when talking about Catholics. I hope that was clear enough.

    THANK YOU for reading this and for checking me on my facts. I always welcome that and true friends keep us honest and call us on our shit! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. People in ancient times possibly did not have as many choices as far as beverages. I've read that drinking wine protected them from bad water possibly. I don't know. My own view is that it is not a sin to drink a glass of wine, per se. However, we need to go to bottom-line motivations. Why is one drinking a glass of wine rather than tea or Dr. Pepper or Big Red or lemonade or Gatorade or root beer or (insert your own choice here). Today there are so many things a person can choose to drink for refreshment; so why is one choosing alcohol? Well, obviously for the buzz it gives. A strawberry soda (or whatever) probably tastes better than beer, but there is no buzz to it. Yes, there are people who will say it's because they like the taste of wine. Whatever. But since it is obviously mostly for the buzz, the question now becomes: could I just pop a tranquilizer and that would be equally ok with the Lord? If one is chronically, debilitatingly stressed, I suppose it could be necessary on the advice of a doctor. But in the average case, I do wonder about motivation when a Christian chooses alcohol when there are so many other things available to drink these days.

    Additionally, I see in the things you said a sort of "hostility" toward the prior generation's "legalism." I see that it in many other Christians of your generation. I somewhat understand it, but also think it is possibly a huge over-reaction in the opposite direction. So nowadays, instead of saying no alcohol whatsoever, some Christians respond by saying there is no problem with drinking whatsoever. There are some who say there really are no restrictions on anything due to our "liberty in Christ." I doubt you believe that way, but many do. Some go around cursing. Many Christian women dress in a way that in no way can be considered modest. Many modern Christians do not flinch at the idea of watching movies containing filth. The church of the prior generation possibly suffered from excessively vigilant discernment, but many in today's church seem to suffer from a paucity of discernment. Today, many Christians seem to have the attitude of pushing the envelope as far as possible. Things went from one extreme to the other.

    Speaking strictly for myself, I choose not to drink because I think I am a better example that way, especially for my grandchildren. Also, I cannot imagine dressing in a provocative manner and thinking that conforms to what God's word says about womanhood. I would be embarrassed in front of Jesus to do that. Would also be embarrassed for Jesus to return and find me watching a movie that contains and/or celebrates the lustful, base things of the world. God's word tells us to allow the Spirit to "renew" our thinking and that we are to meditate on things that are lovely, true, honorable, etc. Cannot do that while cursing and watching R rated movies. But also, I just don't want those things. It has nothing to do with being a prude. Rather, because of my relationship with Christ, those things look like dog vomit to me. Sorry for the crude words, but they aptly describe how I feel about it. So, again, it appears that we went from the older generation being like the Galatians, to nowadays many Christians thinking that our liberty in Christ is an excuse for being no different from the rest of the world.
    Blessings to you in your walk with Christ. Don't trust your feelings ("lean not on your own understanding"); but rather trust God's word.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Part One:

    Dear "Anonymous" (Sherie?),

    Thank you for attempting to respond to my blog post. I shall strive to be as gracious as possible. However, your rationales, thought processes, and lack of doctrinal foundation to your hypotheses and opinions make doing so rather quite difficult to be quite honest.

    For starters, there is a lot of filler to your response. I suppose that is to compensate for the lack of substance to your argument, to wit, any attempt to address the empirical and logical and doctrinal support I provided for my argument.

    You seem to have an irrational hang-up with alcohol buzzes despite the fact God gave us the alcohol buzz to enjoy along with sugar buzz and caffeine buzz not to mention the Vitamin D buzz. What is it with you and buzzes?

    You have a problem with my hostility towards legalism? I suppose I picked that up from Christ Himself.

    You state:

    "There are some who say there really are no restrictions on anything due to our "liberty in Christ." I doubt you believe that way, but many do. Some go around cursing. Many Christian women dress in a way that in no way can be considered modest. Many modern Christians do not flinch at the idea of watching movies containing filth."

    Talk about a bird walk and not addressing what I said but instead making an oblique stab at a straw man argument! Did you miss my point on purpose or by accident?

    You said "The church of the prior generation possibly suffered from excessively vigilant discernment"... is "excessively vigilant discernment" what you call legalism now?

    You said:

    " Today, many Christians seem to have the attitude of pushing the envelope as far as possible. Things went from one extreme to the other. "

    What does any of that have to do with my point? I suppose since you cannot argue successfully against any my points you therefore have to keep going off the reservation with your rant. Next thing you are going to suggest is that we have to avoid eating any tasty food because so many more people in America have problems with gluttony and obesity than they do with drunkenness except that gluttony and obesity are fully acceptable in even the most medieval archaic paleo-fundamentalist churches... lard-asses abound with nary a hint of judgement!

    You said:

    "Speaking strictly for myself, I choose not to drink because I think I am a better example that way, especially for my grandchildren." My question to you is "how does that make you a better example"... well unless you aspire for them to grow up not knowing God personally but rather experiencing godless religion in place of living life as God intended enjoying the things He has given us and being in real relationship with him, something you Fundies can't even grasp.

    You said:

    "Also, I cannot imagine dressing in a provocative manner and thinking that conforms to what God's word says about womanhood. I would be embarrassed in front of Jesus to do that. Would also be embarrassed for Jesus to return and find me watching a movie that contains and/or celebrates the lustful, base things of the world. God's word tells us to allow the Spirit to "renew" our thinking and that we are to meditate on things that are lovely, true, honorable, etc. Cannot do that while cursing and watching R rated movies."

    What does any of that have to do with the point of my blog post? Also, seem to be clueless about the R-rating and what it means with a typical one-size-fits-all one-dimensional understanding of the rating system. Did you know that the Christian movie 'The Passion" is R-rated but of course you don't watch R-rated movies so I suppose you missed that one. Your thinking is NOT "renewed" if you are being legalistic... that's old school, old lady!

    (see second part)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Part Two:

    You said "It has nothing to do with being a prude." Methinks ye protest too much!

    You said: "Rather, because of my relationship with Christ, those things look like dog vomit to me. Sorry for the crude words, but they aptly describe how I feel about it."

    Based upon what you have shared here you clearly don't have a relationship with Christ but seek salvation through works of vain religiosity, the Cross of Christ being of none effect to you. Who needs Christ if one avoids watching R-rated movies and showing a little decolletage, no? What crude words? "Dog vomit"? Oh you're really going to hell for that one!

    You said:

    "So, again, it appears that we went from the older generation being like the Galatians, to nowadays many Christians thinking that our liberty in Christ is an excuse for being no different from the rest of the world."

    No, actually, you never were like the Galatians but rather like the Pharisees but at least you got the correct century and Roman province. Also, you speak like one generation or two older than you actually are as your generation was actually pretty hedonistic, certainly more so than your selective memory informs you. There is selective memory as nostalgic mythology and then there is reality and the one is but a distorted reflection of the other. Even your parent's and grandparent's generations were culturally more informed by secular Victorian values than the more religious Fundamentalist ones. And Fundamentalism has basically died off as its lack of love and spiritual reality turned away too many people for it to long survive. It has essentially died and the Evangelicals have taken your place.

    You said:

    "Don't trust your feelings ("lean not on your own understanding"); but rather trust God's word."

    Wow, unintentional irony is something you are good at.... everything you said was a personal opinion based upon cultural mores and your "feelings" and not one iota based upon scripture. Remember: my entire argument was based upon scripture and logic, NONE of which you directly addressed which is understandable considering my argument is unassailable.

    Please take the time to reread my post and do so with an open mind this time... perhaps then you will better grasp what I was actually saying and you might broaden your understanding and grow as a Christian... if you even are one.

    Kimmer

    ReplyDelete
  6. Kimmer, my bro,

    What an excellent Christian apologist you are! This where, I do swear, that we are kin... you stick to the point, you go for the heart of the debate with a ferocity fired by a search for real and honest truth, and you know your shit before you even attempt to go there and do just that. I have a renewed belief in you and your purpose in life. And I think that on a metaphorical level you are C.S. Lewis' long lost relative.

    Keep your voice strong, firm, and loud. I would rather be boiled in oil than to be a fool and I see that you are same-minded.

    One other point, I would like to make re: this Protestant/fundamentalist attitude towards wine, spirits, and liquor is this: there are two doctrines of faith within the world today. One is based upon Paulism, or the sometimes overdone rantings of the Apostle Paul and the other is Johanian, or based upon the Book of John. I know that you have noticed, by now, the dualism involved with these two trains of thought. Whereas the Paulist doctrine emerged most fully during the Victorian era with a devotion wholly to work and a strict adherence to any and all diversions that would cause one to stray from one's work (or job), the Johanian culture is more embraced by our European cousins. Johanian thought is based more on a love for all things, is more emotional, but forgiving, and there is a freedom of one's spirit that allows one to play, to sing, to drink, and to dance.

    I became aware of these binary schools of thought in a class and through a book called "Zorba the Greek" wherein the gist of the plot was the importance of living life to the fullest set against the likes of Gustave Flaubert's "Madame Bovary," whose living-life-to-the-fullest lifestyle was shown to be one of self-indulgence, impulsiveness, and recklessness.

    Thanks to the Industrial Revolution and a new devotion to one's occupation in order to turn the cogs of the giant machine of progress, the Americans fell in behind England and the result is clearly present today in the form of materialism, the pursuit of money, and a rigidity of thought that self sustains this lifestyle. Most people never question where this manner of living was given birth, thanks to fully and wholly accepting the ideas and ideals of their parents.

    Sects developed along the way that further restricted one's thoughts and actions, such as the beliefs of the Pentecostal, Jehovah Witness, and Baptist (they're a little older but not by much). There was a limiting adherence to one's behavior and a sobriety attached to all aspects of life. What folks never realized that when they fully embraced these aspects of these particular religions that they also embraced an extreme form of Paulism and as such, the focus was on the participants, their dress, their teetotalism--all outward manifestations of behavior--and not on the inner person.

    That one class changed me forever, as at last I realized that I am and always had been a follower of John. Example: when I would find one of my grades posted outside the class, I would leap for joy and do a little dance. No one else did that. My joy is expressed without care of judgment by others. But examining the larger picture here, it's my expansion of God's loving grace that colors my every move; that, in itself, is what so many others like myself try to project. And none of us do well with restrictions.

    All of my ramblings have a point and it is this: whether one chooses to drink or not, lies in a deeper belief passed along without question from one generation to another. This belief is bundled along with restrictions that have nothing to do with the Bible, but with someone who decided to put a spin on his particular interpretation of a Paulist admonition. Whether they like it or not, it is people's lack of logic and reason that prohibits wine in their life and a lack of comprehension as to the history of their own culture.

    Lin,
    Your sister in Christ

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey..good posts... I enjoyed reading this. I'm a Johanian too. Allison

    ReplyDelete
  8. Linsis,

    Thanks for your kind post and thanks for further elaborating from a Catholic perspective.

    Allison, I suppose I'm a Johnian, too, without being a Catholic! :-p

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Buzzed" is a drunken state. CHP states that buzzed driving is drunk drunk driving!!! Religion strikes again! Laughable. No debate.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dear Anonymous #3,

    You are right about religion striking again... you are religious... just like the people who murdered Christ.... obviously religion is pretty meaningless.. .and laughable.

    There are so many problems with your vapid, snarky comment I'm not sure where to begin. For starters, if you have to quote a simplistic, jingoistic public safety slogan that fails to account for varying degrees of "buzzedness" then there are problems with your argument. They can be forgiven for erring on the side of over-caution being a public safety agency: you cannot. The CHP is not a source of doctrinal and scriptural enlightenment and apparently neither are you. Given you have no doctrinal or scriptural legs to stand you are reduced to leaning on the CHP for support, but clearly not enlightenment. Given that the CHP also equally condemns driving while sleepy or while under the influence of prescription drugs that impair driving does that mean you also feel that being sleepy or taking prescription drugs that cause one to be in any way buzzed are also generally sinful activities as well? What about cell phone use? If that is considered unsafe while driving is it also unsafe outside the car, too?

    You are correct: there is no debate.

    ReplyDelete