Previous | Next 

PERSONAL OPINION
Revisiting the alcohol question

John H. Redekop

Some Mennonite Brethren say that the wisest response to the question of alcoholic drinking is to say nothing. Even to raise the matter, it is argued, is to trigger controversy and expose sharp differences of opinion. Yes, we have some problems in our congregations but, we are told, the situation is so complicated and divisions run so deep that it is pointless to address the matter. Therefore, in our churches and in our Conference sessions, it is best to say nothing.

Such a stance, I suggest, is inadequate. The issue is a major one in society, and our collective commitment to live godly lives compels us to grapple with it. I also feel a need to deal with the matter because inconsistency troubles me. It sends a confusing message and undermines Christian credibility. A blatant contradiction between a denomination’s official stance and its widespread practice is doubly troubling.

As I focus my thoughts on this matter, four fundamental realities come to mind.

First, ever since Mennonite Brethren congregations in North America organized themselves into a Conference, they have consistently rejected alcohol consumption. In the early decades, the stance was outright prohibition. In later years, the position was stated more moderately. In 1969, for example, the assembled Canadian and American delegates approved a lengthy statement which included the following:

“While the Bible does warn against the use of alcohol (Proverbs 20:1; 23:3), it does not explicitly forbid the use of beverage alcohol. The Bible does declare wine to be a benefit from the Lord (Genesis 27:28; Psalm 104:15; Isaiah 55:1; and others), and other Scriptural texts would seem to point to moderate use of these beverages as acceptable conduct. We must, however, also say that the Christian has a responsibility for his example and influence . . . the Christian abstains, not because he believes that moderate drinking is condemned outright in Scripture, but that in the face of the staggering problems of alcoholism, love to the neighbour, and in particular love to the weaker brother, demands voluntary abstinence . . . We covenant together to practise total abstinence. We believe that this best expresses our divine calling as disciples with responsibility to God and man.”

This decision still stands as our norm. It makes a lot of sense. It has doubtless helped many individuals and prevented much grief. This covenanting to practise abstinence constitutes the first fundamental reality.

The second fundamental reality takes us in another direction. It has been my observation in numerous settings and it has been reported to me by many individuals that our official Conference covenant is widely ignored. At some weddings, one has a choice of alcoholic or non-alcoholic punch. In a goodly number of homes, birthdays, anniversaries and other celebrations include at least an alcoholic toast. Several decades ago, a truly fine MB church member, a leader in his congregation, was crowned in his region as “Grape and Wine King”. As I recall, the awarding of this honour did not trigger any official critical response, at least not in his home congregation.

The situation obviously varies considerably across our North American fellowship, but if we think that, in general, abstinence still reigns throughout our congregations, we are kidding ourselves.

The third fundamental reality is that the New Testament, as already noted above, does not condemn moderate drinking. Our attempt to root abstinence in New Testament teaching runs into considerable difficulty because of the fact that Jesus’ first miracle involved the creation of wine, indeed very fine wine, to be consumed at a wedding (John 2:1-11). Various other Scriptures could be cited. These passages constitute only one side of the story, but it is an important one. The key point is this. Drinking alcoholic beverages can lead to terrible problems, and the Scriptures repeatedly warn us about this.

Nonetheless, if we want to make a case for total abstinence, we must acknowledge that the supporting arguments are mainly logical, not theological. It may be a good thing to covenant with one another to practise total abstinence, but, because the case cannot be proven from Scripture, it is difficult to convince all Mennonite Brethren to live by this covenant.

The fourth fundamental reality is that alcoholism continues to be one of the worst social problems in modern times. It has destroyed countless homes, ruined countless marriages, devastated countless families, caused countless traffic accidents, created widespread poverty, generated plagues of disease and resulted in countless early deaths.

That brings me to my concluding questions. What can our denomination do, without claiming more for the Bible than it claims for itself, to resist the inroads of serious alcohol consumption? How can we develop a credible consistent stance? How should we bridge the considerable gap between Conference policy and practical reality? To let the situation deteriorate is not good enough. We need wise leaders who can help us understand and uphold biblical teaching, who can spell out an understanding of Scripture which will shape not only our Conference policy but also our actual lifestyle.

Previous | Next 

Last modified May 17, 2001.

© 2001 Mennonite Brethren Herald.
Published by the Canadian Conference of MB Churches.
Masthead and usage information.