Folks who love their liquor will have a harder time pretending that drinking alcohol is anything but stupid, according to a recent article in the Chicago Tribune.
And you don't even have to "get stupid" to be stupid.
While the media went overboard publicizing a few studies claiming that a glass of red wine per day could slightly lessen the chance of heart attack or stroke, massive and persuasive evidence demonstrates that "drinking alcohol -- any form of alcohol, even in moderate amounts -- can pose a serious threat to your health."
Science, in this case, supports common sense.
Drinking alcohol has been shown to contribute to cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, and liver. Even breast cancer and colon cancer have been shown to be related to alcohol use: the more you drink, the greater the likelihood of getting it.
Lots of food products have been taken off the market that have a much smaller chance of contributing to cancer, but you don't mess with the beer, wine, and alcohol lobby. The alcohol industry has managed to get such powerful laws on their side that they are virtually immune to lawsuits, even though everyone with a head knows that they're peddling poison.
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention lists alcohol consumption as the third-largest cause of preventable death in the U.S. -- right after smoking and obesity.
Not to mention all the people killed or harmed by drunk drivers or angry people inflamed by alcohol.
Scientists haven't nailed down all the mechanisms for how alcohol kills, but the main culprit seems to be liver damage. The liver is the body's primary defense in clearing the blood of dangerous toxins. Aside from being a dangerous toxin in its own right, alcohol in any amount can cause damage to that all-important filter.
There was a time when churches -- many of them Baptist -- led the temperance movement and were quick to warn others of the dangers of drinking. They weren't even afraid to call a harmful habit "sin."
These days, we're more likely to wink at the social lubricant and emotional crutch, or even use it as a come-on to appear more relevant.
Is that a helpful witness? Christian leaders, perhaps more than anyone, have a responsibility to tell the truth: drinking alcohol may be cool, but it's not smart.
8 comments:
Dear Dr. Cartledge,
Thank you for a thoughtful reflection today. While I am careful not to label moderate alcohol consumption as sin, because I do not think that the Bible does so, I have chosen to abstain from alcohol and think that this is best choice with regards to this issue. For one, I think that Christians should think carefully about supporting an industry that has contributed to the deaths of many, to merciless addictions, and ruined relationships. Second, Paul reminds us to consider those who are "weak" in their faith. Though many alcohol consumers are disciplined to consume alcohol in moderate amounts, there are countless more who cannot or do not understand the long term affects of alcohol abuse. This is especially true of lower income households. Thank you for this post and for using your talent for writing to make a difference in Baptist Circles and the church universal.
Amen to all you said Tim. I'll add that of all the "moderate" drinkers I knew, none ever appeared to me in person. In other words, no one I know of who drank ever did so with moderation. In fact no one I've ever known who drank did so without serious repercussions in his or her lives, relationships, etc.
Let's just call a spade a spade. Alcohol, like any other strong drug, carries high risks when not administered by a doctor. Since no doctors are required to get alcohol, anyone can self-medicate themselves into oblivion, and many I've seen do it. The only other drug that I have experience with that has similar serious consequences when not used in moderation is nicotene.
I quit them both in 1992. One thing leads to another, so why push it? Many drugs have helpful benefits, if they are used properly.
To ban all alcohol is not right, but neither is it right to allow just anyone of age to buy it. But we have to, or give up the Bill of Rights. But we sure don't have to allow it in our churches.
I wonder how many good upstanding Baptist citizens of North Carolina know exactly what it means and feels like to get drunk, or just "a little high," however you want to put it? How many have done it themselves enough to know? Before they allow alcohol-related church functions, they should. They need to be aware of what kind of worms they are setting loose.
I think it is stepping over the line. Your body is the temple of your spirit, and is required to be kept in good condition for that reason if for no other. Because it does not belong to you, it belongs to God, and is temporarily on loan to you. And me. :-)
The word of God explicitly condemns the abuse of alcohol, laying the guilt, not at the feet of those who produce it, sell it or use it in moderation, but at the feet of the abusers themselves.
The word of God explicitly condones and commends the moderate use of alcohol, not only for medicinal purposes, but as a beverage.
Jesus Christ the son of God was a moderate user of alcohol as a beverage. His first miracle demonstrating His Christly character was turning water into wine for a wedding.
These simple facts sweep away tomes of Pharisaical rhetoric on the subject.
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
I've been a reader of this blog for a while and this post is one that seems a bit out of place to me.
From reading your blog, I understand the influence that alcohol has had on your life. Your feelings towards the consumption are understandable and justified.
The problem I see, however, is the placement of those feelings towards everyone around you. The end point of your post seems to be that the moral high ground is to abstain from alcohol...a view which I tend to think is beyond the text of scripture.
I grew up in a fundamentalist church where I saw a lot of things taught and preached that were beyond the scriptures. (women couldn't wear pants, men couldn't preach with facial hair, and the list goes on). So, I'm a bit sensitive to that type of thing. My draw to the moderate Baptists is that they generally shun the expression of those type teachings.
Does my confusion make sense? On one hand, it sounds to me like you talk against some of the extra-biblical stances that the fundamentalists take, but on the other hand, you seem to take the same type stance when it comes to alcohol. While your personal position is completely understandable, my concern is with the impression that others who have a different viewpoint may be morally inferior.
Perhaps I am misreading your posts on the matter or I'm reading a bit too much into your writings. Either way, I'd like to hear your take on it.
Thanks for the blog and for taking time to read and respond to the comments,
John Land
Macon, GA
Thanks to everyone for the comments. I confess to being less than impartial on the subject of beverage alcohol, which no doubt affects my approach (and even tone) when discussing it.
I agree with Mark's statement that the Bible speaks of moderate alcohol use as a common thing, even for Jesus. I wonder if Jesus would have chosen a soft drink had one been available, but that's beside the point.
I also recognize John P.'s point that I appear less flexible on this than on some other biblical interpretations. He's correct, and there is a reason for it. In our world, the greater strength of alcoholic drinks and the obvious connection between drinking and the use of illicit drugs that were not available in biblical times lead me to give more weight to Jesus' warnings about being a stumbling block to others than to the scripture's implicit acceptance of alcohol use.
The Bible also appears to condone slavery as a fact of life, but we live in a different world/cultural context and rely on other scriptural truths to condemn the idea that one human can own another.
I think times have changed enough to warrant appropriate warnings against the potential dangers of drinking. The article I cited highlighted medical risks related to drinking: I though they were worth passing on.
Thanks again for reading, and for responding.
Thanks for the response.
Here's the question that I'm working on. Perhaps you could give your opinion.
Should churches (or conventions for that matter) ask members to sign statements indicating that they will abstain from alcohol?
I fully understand that autonomous churches can do as they please, but I'm looking for a bit of perspective. I know that this is a bad comparison, but I'm wondering if there is a difference between the convention asking missionaries to sign the latest "Baptist Faith & Message" and a church asking people to sign a statement on alcohol. Both seem to draw from a bit of extra-biblical interpretation.
Again, it's not my intent to be accusatory, only inquisitive as to your perspective.
Hi John,
I would not be in favor of requiring (or even requesting) church members to sign an anti-alcohol pledge. I believe such decisions should be of personal conviction, not a church or denominational requirement.
I still believe in the "priesthood of the believer" -- both singular and plural.
Tony
I am clasified as a moderate Baptist and I have long thought that we moderates might be accused of hypocrisy when it comes to our arguments related to alcohol consumption. I know that hypocrisy is a strong word and I use it hesitantly but I think it may fit in one particular respect.
We moderates are quick (and I think correct) to say that certain biblical passages related to females are heavily conditioned by the culture in which they were written and were never intended to be universal norms for all ages. However, we tend to turn a blind eye to obvious and stark cultural differences between alcohol consumption of the biblical culture and alcohol consumption in our culture.
Dr. Cartledge above gives several examples of increased dangers in alcohol consumption today compared to biblical times. There are similar comparsions that he did not mention.
Really all I'm saying is that we cannot pick and choose which issues to which we would apply the valid biblical interpretational device of cultural conditioning. Yes, the Bible allows for alcohol consumption but it also says the practice can be very dangerous (see Prov. 23:31-32 for example). Given the fact that the strength of drinks in this culture tends to be greater and that drunk driving today is not about driving a donkey and numerous other factors, the case might be made that drinking in this society is even more dangerous than in biblical times. And none of us would argue that alcohol has not ruined many lives and many relationships.
Let us be careful lest we find ourselves ardently defending what can be an extremely destructive practice.
Post a Comment