Loading ...Should Pentecostals rethink stand on alcohol?
flockwoodPentecostal and holiness churches went against the cultural tides when they opposed cigarette smoking throughout the 20th century.
Early on, the military was promoting cigarettes. So was Congress and Hollywood, Madison Avenue and (of course) Big Tobacco. But Pentecostals held their ground — and were eventually vindicated.
Pentecostals argued that smoking was a nasty, disgusting, filthy habit (all true, of course) and that it defiled the temple of the Holy Ghost. But that isn’t why they carried the day. They won the war on tobacco because of science and the surgeon general.
Cigarettes caused cancer. Period. Game, set, match.
While Pentecostals carried the day on cigarettes, they’ve been less successful when it comes to alcohol. And in this battle, science could be their adversary instead of their ally.
Time magazine’s headline says it all: Heavy Drinkers Outlive Nondrinkers, Study Finds. Here’s a couple of paragraphs from the Time article:
“The sample of those who were studied included individuals between ages 55 and 65 who had had any kind of outpatient care in the previous three years. The 1,824 participants were followed for 20 years. One drawback of the sample: a disproportionate number, 63%, were men. Just over 69% of the never-drinkers died during the 20 years, 60% of the heavy drinkers died and only 41% of moderate drinkers died.
These are remarkable statistics. Even though heavy drinking is associated with higher risk for cirrhosis and several types of cancer (particularly cancers in the mouth and esophagus), heavy drinkers are less likely to die than people who have never drunk.”
The study flies in the face of conventional wisdom. And it seems, at first blush, to defy common sense.
But here’s my question: If future studies suggest that complete abstention from alcohol is injurious to one’s health, should Pentecostals and other anti-alcohol churches rethink their long-held position on alcohol?
Furthermore, if alcohol, in moderation, is conclusively shown to be good for one’s health (and the scientific evidence increasingly says it is), should Protestant churches re-embrace the use of wine during the Eucharist?
The use of grape juice during Communion is apparently a 19th century innovation. All of the churches with apostolic succession, as far as I know, use wine when they commemorate the Last Supper.
Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Greek Catholic, Roman Catholic, Anglican — they all have used the fermented fruit of the vine for centuries or millennia.
August 31st, 2010 at 1:18 pm
They’re rejection of cigarettes was not contingent upon the science, so why should they care about the science now? And why single out Pentecostals? There are other religions that call for their adherents to abstain from alcohol, like muslims and buddhists.
August 31st, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Why did I single out Pentecostals? Perhaps because my brilliant mom, a faithful Pentecostal teetotaler, never took a sip of alcohol, but died of pancreatic cancer at age 59.
If moderate use of alcohol is conclusively linked to an increased lifespan and if Scripture does not clearly prohibit the use of alcohol and if alcohol is part of the unending tradition of the church catholic, then I would argue this is an appropriate topic for civil discussion and reflection.
August 31st, 2010 at 4:26 pm
I completely agree. This, like most topics, deserves careful reflection and civil discussion. So let us continue. My guess is that you don’t suppose moderate drinking would have prolonged your mother’s life, but you suspect that it might have increased the overall quality of it. If that’s way off base, let me know. I think i may have a similar situation if that is the case. My dad has multiple sclerosis, and i’ve read a lot about the potential benefits marijuana could have for MS patients, but I can’t get him to try it out, because it’s illegal. I figure if it even could help a little, it would be worth trying.
August 31st, 2010 at 5:55 pm
I think civil dialogue on this topic is a good one, but I’d be surprised if there were one. I’ve gone to Pentecostal churches for 8 years and while they are wonderful in many ways, I haven’t seen a lot of flexibility and not much discussion either on things about which people may differ.
August 31st, 2010 at 7:58 pm
The problem I see here is in using life span as the only criteria as to whether a given practice is proper. OK, so we say that since some study claims heavy drinkers live longer, we no longer discourage drinking. What happens when the next study says child molesters live longer?
August 31st, 2010 at 9:18 pm
Like laughter is best medicine, moderate drinking also improve state of the mind by diminishing stress and increasing humor, happiness and intimacy. Humor lightens our burdens, inspires hopes, connects us to our God and our neighbors, and it also keeps us grounded, focused, and alert. Major illness like Gastric ulcer, hyper tension, depression, anxiety etc comes out of stress.
Moderate drinking brings back balance of mind body and souls. Christ’s 1st test of divinity came through converting water into best wine of the town in wedding ceremony in city of Cana of Galilee by the request of His mother. If holistic social drinking would not have good effect on our health, mother of Jesus would not request Him to fill up the shortfall of wine at the party. But again we must be aware that excess of everything is bad, which brings statistics of mortality significantly higher among heavy drinkers (60%) than moderate drinkers (41%).
September 1st, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Steve, you make a good point. Just because heavy drinkers live longer doesn’t mean the quality of their life is better.
But there are other factors here.
1.) The Bible condemns drunkenness, but it doesn’t call for prohibition. Indeed, it commands Israelites to 1.) make wine and 2.) give the best wine as an offering to God so that God can enjoy it. The Bible mentions wine 233 times and many of the references are favorable.
2.) Wine is sacramental — not only in all of the oldest Christian traditions, but also in Judaism as well. Moses didn’t ban alcohol. Neither did Jesus.
Scripture and tradition accepted alcohol. But they’re only two legs of the Wesleyan formula. The other two are experience and reason. Experience and reason convinced Protestants in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century to fight for prohibition. But after experiencing prohibition from 1920 to 1933, America decided to abandon it. It may be that experience and reason still will lead most evangelicals to abstain from alcohol. But scientific evidence that moderate drinking is good for us undermines the “reason” rationale for complete abstention.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Now if you take Julian’s rationale, the reason alcohol is supposedly good for us is exactly in the drunkenness. (Note that I am not saying the study promotes that conclusion.) But the Bible condemns it. Interesting.
September 2nd, 2010 at 8:28 am
My understanding is that the complete prohibition of alcohol use that many protestant churches of American origin espouse has nothing to do with scripture–it has to do with the temperance movement that got a religious gloss because the women that founded it also were very powerful layfolk in their churches. That’s not the most subtle description, but there you go.
September 9th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
It would probably be okay as long as most of us could keep it moderate. That’s the problem. Too many of us turn right into alcoholics, start beating our children and killing each other in our cars, at the first sip.