Teetotal Legalism

This morning, during the midst of jury duty discussion, I mentioned at work that I’d not have a problem with a law banning alcoholic drinks.  Others in the conversation were a mix of Believers and non-Believers.  After the converstaion ended (shortly after my mostly tongue-in-cheek comment), I was accused of legalism and “not doing the Gospel any good” with my remark.  Both interesting claims.  Let’s dig in.

My Claim

I’m not personally completely opposed to alcohol.  I’ve even had a drink or two  in the past several months.  However, if that option were taken from me, I’d not lose much sleep.  The Bible itself, one could very easily and accurately argue, does not condemen alcohol.  Popular examples are the wine Jesus server at Last Supper; the first of Jesus’ public miracles, the water-to-wine conversion at a wedding; and Paul’s advice to Timothy to drink a little wine for his stomach.  To be fair, there are those that will argue that the consumption of alcohol was encouraged, at least in the Paul/Timothy example, due to the poor quality of the water at time.  If Timothy’s stomach was upset, it would be wise to avoid imbibind impure water that might upset it further, and, thus, the wine suggestion.  While that may be valid, it hardly strikes at the, for lack of a better term, morality of alcohol consumption, which, as I’ve noted briefly, the Bible is pretty vague on.  And I’m fine with that.  I don’t think the Bible was intended to be an exhaustive list of dos and don’ts, but, in part, a book of principles, which leads me to the principal I was espousing, which is this:  While you can not make an air tight Biblical case against alcohol, you can make a case that it’s the most prudent course of action.

Here’s the logic as I see it.  For many, drinking can lead to drunkenness, so, to avoid drunkenness (which Scripture clearly commands us to do), it’s best to avoid that which causes it, which is alcohol.  Some will argue moderation, which I think Scripture would support.  For others, though, moderation opens a door which they can’t shut, so, for them, it’s best not to even crack it.  Teetotalism.  One can easily argue that this is merely a suggestion and is not explicitly taught in Scripture, and one would be right, but I think it’s a pretty sound principal.  As I’ve noted, though, not one I have not followed completely.  That being said, I still find it wise and would not be opposed to seeing it etched in law.  I would not, however, lose sleep if it were not.

It was argued in another discussion that codifying that principal into the law of the land is un-Christian.  There me be some merit to that claim, but I’m not convinced.  James Garfield stated on July 4, 1876, “If the next century does not find us a great nation…it will be because those who represent the…morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.”  I think he’s right.  I think that we as Christians (and, probably, generally speaking, those of most/all faiths) have a responsibility to work to affect public policy (granted, there are religious sects and denominations that explicitly disagree with idea).  To state it generally, I feel that I, were I a policy maker, would have a clear mandate to enact laws according to my beliefs.  In the republic in which we live, we elect people to go to the halls of power and do just that, so, hopefully, we vote for people who are ideologically similar to ourselves.  If someone does not like the idea of me legislating according to my beliefs, then they are free and wise not to vote for me.

Is that legalistic?

Executive summary:  I don’t think so.  At no point in the conversation did I state that it is categorically immoral to imbibe a potent potable or that you would burn forever in Hell should you do so.  That’s my view of a legalistic stance.  He may have a slightly different connotation than I, so we may have a slight disconnect there.  The denotative sense can be found here.  That sense denotes strict adherence to a law or code.  Since there is none, I would there conclude, my stance can not be strictly legalistic.  As I’ve noted, though, the connotations people hold can have a pretty big effect on the conclusions reached outside the world of pedantry.

I find, though, that my position here is no different than that which I take on issues such as abortion, murder, theft, etc. (although those are arguably much more serious).  In each of those cases, I believe them to be wrong (based on my faith, reason, etc), so I feel that they should disallowed by the law of the land, and take steps through the ballot box, letter writing, and other means of discourse to sway public policy.  While in contrast to this issue, however, I am steadfastly and unswervingly opposed to the example issue listed just above, and I’m not necessarily committed to this one, I find the basic premise the same:  I hold a particular belief, and, where appropriate, feel that public policy should reflect that.  Note that I’m not asserting that all my beliefs be codified in law, because A) Heaven help us, and B) some of my beliefs are just that:  my beliefs.  I find it inappropriate to swear in general, but that is hardly an issue for legislation.

So… legalistic?  I don’t think so.  Dogmatic?  Certainly.  Infallible?  Hardly.  A “hill worth dying on?”  Not even close.

Did I Hurt the Gospel?

This, I think, is the more interesting charge, and I think the answer, based on my thoughts above, is “no.”  The rationale behind is that the non-Believer that heard that and is assumed to think that I’m a legalistic “Bible thumping” Christian, thus shutting any door to the Gospel that this man might represent.  Since I don’t feel my statement was legalistic, I think the first part of that charge falls on its face, but what about the thumping charge?

There seems to be a school of thought that we need to make non-Christians like us.  I will readily admit that the Cross is an offense, and we should not add to that offense with how we share our faith.  Now, having said that, to be blunt, I mostly don’t care (within the limits just discussed) what an unbelieving world thinks of me.  I’m called to be like Christ, which I am trying to do as best as I can.  It is certainly possible and highly likely that I’m off base on more than just a few things, but I’m doing what I deem to be correct based on my understanding of Scripture.  I would hope that if I am ever shown to be wrong, based on Scripture and not public opinion, that I would be humble enough to change course (and I’m sure if it were all clearly documented, my record would be spotty at best).  I refuse, however, to change any of my beliefs, feeling them to be correct and Scriptural, becuase it might offend an non-Believer.  I don’t want to offend, I can’t help it if a Biblical belief offends him.  I’m willing to discuss whether I’m wrong or not, but merely the fear of offending is no grounds for doctrinal change.

A Long Overdue Closing

While I disagree with the conclusions my friend reach, especially the perjorative assignations, he brings up a good point.  We need to be careful not to fall into legalism, and we must be careful not to drive away the lost by our actions.  In this case, however, I don’t feel I’ve done either (well, at least not the first.  There’s no real way to tell on the second).  I have always been upfront with what I believe, with varying degrees of tactfulness and graciousness, but always clear and honest.  That honesty, coupled with the occasional bout of tactlessness, is why I will likely never be a public policy maker, so those of you that enjoy the occasional drink or round of drunkenness can rest easy.