Alcohol and the Christian (once again); Was Peter masters

[gwine]

Originally posted by houseparent

Man, did the party get rowdy

And therein lies my issue. I wish I could go to a few social gathering without having to worry about some idiotic drunks spoiling it.

Come on over to our house. I promise we won't get rowdy.

 

[ReformedWretch]

That is my problem, I need more strong reformed Christian friends! Thing is I have a HECTIC work schedule (12 days on 2 days off) and almost all of our friends have several small children!

 

[mgeoffriau]

Originally posted by gwine#1 Smoking and chewing are not the same. I've never heard of second hand spit, unless you are being careless. :bigsmile:

...which is exactly my point. Is this prevailing opinion that smoking is wrong entirely dependant upon the idea that it is harmful to others?

Originally posted by gwine#2 Methinks you are trying to divert the problem (I know there is a name for that in the logic book). You might just as well argue that the PB causes harm since you could get carpal tunnel syndrome typing all night and then that would be an insurance issue, etc. etc.

It's not diverting the problem. It's simply a counterexample that illustrates the fact that there is not a clear line of demarcation between "public sins" and "private sins". My reason for pointing this out is that I believe this therefore cannot be a good criterium for determining what is acceptable behavior for Christians.

Can you offer a substantive argument to the contrary? Is there actually a clear line between actions that affect only oneself, versus actions that affect others in addition to oneself?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Abstinence, based upon unbiblical reasoning, in my opinion is legalistic/sinful. Abstinence, in relation to being concientious for the weaker brother is sacrificial and to be commended. Concientious abstinence does not mean one has to abstain in the privacy of your own home.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader
In line with Dr. Clark's comments, how many people are actually going to go apostate if they see another Christian drinking some alcohol? I think very very few, while the vast majority of people will just be offended because you are going against their tradition of how a Christian should act.

Next, of the few people that would apostacize, what would they be leaving the faith over? They have it in their head that alcohol is evil and if Christianity is okay with it in moderation, then it must be wrong; therefore the gospel must be false?

How is that really any different than leaving over the Bible's view of homosexuality, the view on the six literal days of creation etc? They all hold in common a rejection of Biblical authority on the issue.

CT

[Edited on 11-25-2005 by ChristianTrader]

I totally understand the premise; I leaned heavily this way previously. There is just enough doubt and grey to pretty much justify anything in that regard.

However, acting in love, sacrificially as Christ did, what would be the prudent thing to do? It is my feeling that what I am doing is most prudent; it keeps everything safe and aligned. I don't have to wonder if I have caused anyone to stumble, apostasize, etc. This should be all our thinking.

 

[BobVigneault]

I average 1-2 beers a week and dropping, more because beer has calories, which are empty, and it is not as healthy for you as Bob Vigneault says (just checking to see if he's reading this.)

Huh? What? I was in the Puritan Pub and the beer-tender said someone was using my name.

Most everyone knows where I stand. I don't drink in public because of the stumbling factor. Many of my friends and family abstain and it was frustrating having them all here for Thanksgiving and nobody wanted to go down in the basement and watch the little bubbles percolate through my 5 gallons of ale mead.

Yeast eats sugar and excretes alcohol. If that's not overwhelming proof of Intelligent Desigh then I'm a monkey's uncle.

Firstly, it is a sin to say 'drinking alcohol is a sin' because it is blashemy against our Lord and I won't tolerate that line of reasoning.

Second, drunkeness is of course a sin and the Bible is very clear on that.

Thirdly, if you are fully convinced in your own mind that you shouldn't drink out of honor and devotion to God then for YOU to drink would be a sin. I may even be sinning if I try to encourage you to drink. Two people can and often do hold to exact opposite convictions yet still honor Christ in those convictions. This is our privilege and commandment.

Our first question must always be 'Am I fully convinced in my own mind that I am honoring Christ in this thing?" This is where debate on the board is crucial. We test and prove and separate biblical conviction from opinion and whimsy.

For me, I am looking forward to getting together with Gerry and Lord willing we will pop open a bottle of Moose Drool Brown Ale. We will discuss this thread. We will discuss the scriptures and what we've read recently. We will go watch the bubbles of fermentation coursing through my homebrew.....

and our hearts will be made glad. Blessed is the fellowship of God's people!

 

[heartoflesh]

Originally posted by Jie-Huli
Well, I will not have time to post later today, but I did just want to address one point which I see has been made, in regard to the wine of biblical times being the same as the wine of today. Some verses were posted showing the point that it was possible for people to get drunk in biblical times (such as Noah, etc.), and therefore the conclusion was drawn that wine was the same then as today. What this fails to take into account is that though the fermented wine of the grape will always have similar qualities, in and of itself, in biblical times the wine that was normally consumed was much more heavily diluted. And the fact that the water of that time needed a mixture of some wine to be more sanitary should also be taken into account. Obviously people could overconsume even this, or dilute their wine less and get drunk. But the "moderate" consumption of wine which is apparently condoned in Scripture was with a much different substance than modern alcoholic beverages, I do not think this can be denied.

The Webmaster himself posted this in another thread (emphasis mine):

Originally posted by Webmaster
I definitely hear what you are saying, and under normal circumstacnes, OJ would violate the RPW. What if you were on a desert island, and only had Coconut Milk? How far or less far will someone go? For example, the wine you use is NOT the same kind of wine the Apostles used. Thiers was 27 parts water and one part wine, if one wants to be technical. Some more or less fermented than others. Others use pita bread, some use matza bread - which is better? is the "commonality" that Turretin argues for what should be used? or is there another standard that pops up that tells us how far or not far to go? Just some things to think through.

Personally, under all normal circumstances - I would use common wine, and common unleavened bread.

Obviously he was not arguing there in favour of abstinence, but the point remains that the wine used in Jesus' time was generally quite diluted.

No one has addressed this argument, unless I missed something.

Scholars?

 

[BobVigneault]

The alcohol content is not relevant to the debate. Until Dr. Welch figured out a way to stop fermentation all grape juiice prior to the 1800s all grape juice fermented. All wine in the bible had alcohol in it. The question was, should a Christian drink alcohol? Slippery slope arguments try to change this into a how much alcohol is a sin. That's easy, enough to get you drunk.

Are we arguing, should a Christian drink alcohol or how much alcohol is a sin? I just don't see what arguing about alcohol level has to do with the debate.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Rick Larson

Originally posted by Jie-Huli
Well, I will not have time to post later today, but I did just want to address one point which I see has been made, in regard to the wine of biblical times being the same as the wine of today. Some verses were posted showing the point that it was possible for people to get drunk in biblical times (such as Noah, etc.), and therefore the conclusion was drawn that wine was the same then as today. What this fails to take into account is that though the fermented wine of the grape will always have similar qualities, in and of itself, in biblical times the wine that was normally consumed was much more heavily diluted. And the fact that the water of that time needed a mixture of some wine to be more sanitary should also be taken into account. Obviously people could overconsume even this, or dilute their wine less and get drunk. But the "moderate" consumption of wine which is apparently condoned in Scripture was with a much different substance than modern alcoholic beverages, I do not think this can be denied.

The Webmaster himself posted this in another thread (emphasis mine):

Originally posted by Webmaster
I definitely hear what you are saying, and under normal circumstacnes, OJ would violate the RPW. What if you were on a desert island, and only had Coconut Milk? How far or less far will someone go? For example, the wine you use is NOT the same kind of wine the Apostles used. Thiers was 27 parts water and one part wine, if one wants to be technical. Some more or less fermented than others. Others use pita bread, some use matza bread - which is better? is the "commonality" that Turretin argues for what should be used? or is there another standard that pops up that tells us how far or not far to go? Just some things to think through.

Personally, under all normal circumstances - I would use common wine, and common unleavened bread.

Obviously he was not arguing there in favour of abstinence, but the point remains that the wine used in Jesus' time was generally quite diluted.

No one has addressed this argument, unless I missed something.

Scholars?

One cannot miss the point that wine could make you drunk, whatever the concentration..........

I'm with Bob, the thread is digressing. Christians have the freedom.


[Edited on 11-26-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Jie-Huli]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
I'm with Bob, the thread is digressing. Christians have the freedom.

[Edited on 11-26-2005 by Scott Bushey]

Digressing from what?

No offense meant to anyone, but since this thread was started to specifically discuss the book "Should Christians Drink: The Case for Total Abstinence" by Dr. Masters, and since out of more than 80 posts not one other person has actually had anything to say about this book, I would say that the entire thread has been a "digression".

 

[Scott Bushey]

Jie,
In that regard, you are absolutely correct. You've assisted in the derailing, but I won't hold that against you; ultimatley, the mods or myself should have kept the thread on topic. Who is modding here? Oh well, I will close this thread and open another more directed at the review.

[Edited on 11-26-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[satz]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by Rick Larson

Originally posted by Jie-Huli
Well, I will not have time to post later today, but I did just want to address one point which I see has been made, in regard to the wine of biblical times being the same as the wine of today. Some verses were posted showing the point that it was possible for people to get drunk in biblical times (such as Noah, etc.), and therefore the conclusion was drawn that wine was the same then as today. What this fails to take into account is that though the fermented wine of the grape will always have similar qualities, in and of itself, in biblical times the wine that was normally consumed was much more heavily diluted. And the fact that the water of that time needed a mixture of some wine to be more sanitary should also be taken into account. Obviously people could overconsume even this, or dilute their wine less and get drunk. But the "moderate" consumption of wine which is apparently condoned in Scripture was with a much different substance than modern alcoholic beverages, I do not think this can be denied.

The Webmaster himself posted this in another thread (emphasis mine):

Originally posted by Webmaster
I definitely hear what you are saying, and under normal circumstacnes, OJ would violate the RPW. What if you were on a desert island, and only had Coconut Milk? How far or less far will someone go? For example, the wine you use is NOT the same kind of wine the Apostles used. Thiers was 27 parts water and one part wine, if one wants to be technical. Some more or less fermented than others. Others use pita bread, some use matza bread - which is better? is the "commonality" that Turretin argues for what should be used? or is there another standard that pops up that tells us how far or not far to go? Just some things to think through.

Personally, under all normal circumstances - I would use common wine, and common unleavened bread.

Obviously he was not arguing there in favour of abstinence, but the point remains that the wine used in Jesus' time was generally quite diluted.

No one has addressed this argument, unless I missed something.

Scholars?

One cannot miss the point that wine could make you drunk, whatever the concentration..........

I'm with Bob, the thread is digressing. Christians have the freedom.


[Edited on 11-26-2005 by Scott Bushey]

My opinion"¦

The alcohol content of the wine in NT days does not really resolve the matter one way or another. I think the bible is clear enough that even in those days the abuse of wine was still associated with drunkenness.

Psalm 104:15 tells us God gave wine to make glad the heart of man. I feel that is a fairly clear reference to the effects of alcohol on drinkers when taken in moderate amounts. The bible doesn´t say that God gave grapes and the devil turned them into wine. Nor does it say that God gave wine to help the ancient people kill bacteria in their drinking water. The fact that wine was enjoyed as a beverage at weddings and the above psalm telling us wine was given to make man´s heart glad is I think indicative that there was enough alcohol back in those days for men to "˜feel it´ and not simply an undetectable amount to sanitize the water.

I feel the bible is fairly clear that moderate wine consumption is a gift from God to be enjoyed. To become drunk is to be strictly avoided, but that in no way detracts from the legitimacy of the proper use of alcohol. The issue of concentration in wine in NT days doesn´t really seem relevant to me. It only means we can drink less now ( in terms of glasses ) as compared to the people in olden times. If Jesus Christ had come to earth during our day that might mean he might make a bottle or two of wine at a wedding party as opposed to a whole barrel full, but it in no way makes it inappropriate for Christians to drink to day ( generally speaking).

 

[gwine]

Originally posted by mgeoffriau

Originally posted by gwine#1 Smoking and chewing are not the same. I've never heard of second hand spit, unless you are being careless. :bigsmile:

...which is exactly my point. Is this prevailing opinion that smoking is wrong entirely dependant upon the idea that it is harmful to others?

No. It's wrong if God says it's wrong.

Originally posted by gwine#2 Methinks you are trying to divert the problem (I know there is a name for that in the logic book). You might just as well argue that the PB causes harm since you could get carpal tunnel syndrome typing all night and then that would be an insurance issue, etc. etc.

It's not diverting the problem. It's simply a counterexample that illustrates the fact that there is not a clear line of demarcation between "public sins" and "private sins". My reason for pointing this out is that I believe this therefore cannot be a good criterium for determining what is acceptable behavior for Christians.

Can you offer a substantive argument to the contrary? Is there actually a clear line between actions that affect only oneself, versus actions that affect others in addition to oneself?

I probably could not. This is a fallen world and every action is tainted with the consequences of it. Practically all that we do has (many times unintended) consequences. Cutting down trees faster than we plant new ones slowly destroys the ecosystem, so you could say that the books and newspapers we read are a sin by your line of reasoning.

But I still think there is a distinction to be made between a first cause and secondary causes, otherwise it seems to me that we remove ourselves from personal guilt over sin. If I smoke heavily and drink heavily thereby causing my body to fall into disrepair then I am personally guilty. If I smoke heavily and cause my children to have increased medical problems then I am personally guilty. And I would agree that if I ate irresponsibly and died too soon (although God alone knows what day is appointed) then I again am personally guilty.

But to enjoy what we have while grounded here on earth in the light of what we would hope is prudent information about the consequences of using or eating the product is a gift from God. Thus, I can enjoy a beer or read a book or drive a car or shoot a gun and many other things, knowing that any one of my actions has the potential for evil.

And with that, I am once again out of my league, so I will extend the right hand of fellowship with my brothers and sisters here on the PB and thank them for the lively debate that makes my head hurt.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Evidently my post got moved. One more point that has been mentioned to me is that a drunk Uriah was more righteous than King David who was trying to hide his sin. (2 Samuel 11) I am not advocating drunkeness. I am advocating a pure heart. Proverbs 4:23 will go a long way if it is applied to a daily life.

Here is an artcle I posted in the other post. I posted it in the Pub a while back. It is very insightful.

[Edited on 11-26-2005 by puritancovenanter]

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Evidently my post got moved. One more point that has been mentioned to me is that a drunk Uriah was more righteous than King David who was trying to hide his sin. (2 Samuel 11) I am not advocating drunkeness. I am advocating a pure heart. Proverbs 4:23 will go a long way if it is applied to a daily life.

Here is an artcle I posted in the other post. I posted it in the Pub a while back. It is very insightful.

[Edited on 11-26-2005 by puritancovenanter]

That article is quite nice.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Originally posted by Jie-Huli

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
I'm with Bob, the thread is digressing. Christians have the freedom.

[Edited on 11-26-2005 by Scott Bushey]

Digressing from what?

No offense meant to anyone, but since this thread was started to specifically discuss the book "Should Christians Drink: The Case for Total Abstinence" by Dr. Masters, and since out of more than 80 posts not one other person has actually had anything to say about this book, I would say that the entire thread has been a "digression".

I have a question. I get regular requests to read or comment on this or that book. I don't usually take them up. In this case, it is demanded that I read yet another book arguing the abstinence case.

When deciding what to read, one of the questions I ask is: who wrote it? I've heard the name Peter Masters and I have a vague impression that he's some broadcaster maybe a sectarian of some sort. I don't know.

Why should I read this? Is this person a specialist in biblical studies or ethics or some how specially qualified to occupy my time and attention? I'm not aware that he is. Is this person making new or outstanding arguments never before made in this history of this question? If not, then I don't think I'm obligated to read it just as I'm not obligated to read every (usually self-published, unedited) book folks send to my mailbox.

Call me an elitist. Fine. Most of the books I read have gone through some sort of screening process. They've been edited and selected for publication by a reputable publisher because they have some merit.

Does this work meet ANY of these standards?

rsc

 

[mgeoffriau]

Originally posted by gwine
No. It's wrong if God says it's wrong.

Or if it can be judged according to the proper and reasonable extension of principles of right/wrong in the Bible? Give me that much room, and I'll agree with you.

Originally posted by gwineI probably could not. This is a fallen world and every action is tainted with the consequences of it. Practically all that we do has (many times unintended) consequences. Cutting down trees faster than we plant new ones slowly destroys the ecosystem, so you could say that the books and newspapers we read are a sin by your line of reasoning.

But I still think there is a distinction to be made between a first cause and secondary causes, otherwise it seems to me that we remove ourselves from personal guilt over sin. If I smoke heavily and drink heavily thereby causing my body to fall into disrepair then I am personally guilty. If I smoke heavily and cause my children to have increased medical problems then I am personally guilty. And I would agree that if I ate irresponsibly and died too soon (although God alone knows what day is appointed) then I again am personally guilty.

But to enjoy what we have while grounded here on earth in the light of what we would hope is prudent information about the consequences of using or eating the product is a gift from God. Thus, I can enjoy a beer or read a book or drive a car or shoot a gun and many other things, knowing that any one of my actions has the potential for evil.

And with that, I am once again out of my league, so I will extend the right hand of fellowship with my brothers and sisters here on the PB and thank them for the lively debate that makes my head hurt.

What's interesting is that we're arguing, and yet share the same position...I agree that things which have the potential for evil are not necessarily evil in and of themselves. I also agree that there is an intuitive difference between immediate and secondary causes, I would just say that the line between them is blurred enough that it is often not useful to attempt these kinds of detailed discussions about "how" wrong drinking is compared to smoking.

I am also of the opinion that the idea that we must take the utmost care for our bodies should be balanced with the knowledge that this flesh, while still a good thing, is a means to full and Christ-like living, and not an end to itself. I'm getting a glorified body (or this body will be glorified, however you want to look at it) when Christ returns anyway, so I'd feel gipped if I didn't use this one up at least a little (just kidding, just kidding...).

 

[CalsFarmer]

Originally posted by Mayflower
What i really to know, is if it would be a problem for you to know if your pastor drinks once in the while a glass of red wine (without becoming druk) ?

Only if it was a really cheap disgusting wine.....OR

If it was a lovely beaujolais and I was NOT INVITED!

One must maintain a standard here......

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I would commend to everyone this article by J.G. Vos called The Bible Doctrine of the Separated Life.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by gwine

To be honest I don't know how "moderate" the smoking was, as my dad is gone now, but he was diagnosed with emphysema and never smoked but worked in an office where people did.

My wife had asthma to the point of needing emergency shots when she was little and her dad smoked - again I cannot say how much. Another lady I worked for long ago had a chronic cough and her three little ones had many colds and respiratory problems and her live in (finally her husband) smoked.

Even today walking into a restaurant gives my wife problems if there is smoking near the waiting area. Of course, that doesn't happen much now because many restaurants in the area are smoke-free and we choose to frequent them instead of those that aren't.

I am not a passionate anti-smoker * but I believe there is sufficient reason to keep away from second-hand smoke and smoggy cities.

* In that I do not actively engage in anti-smoking campaigns or get in people's faces about smoking. I'm more of a passive guy who goes out of my way to avoid second-hand smoke. I believe too that parents who smoke around children are not being responsible stewards of God's gifts to them. (added as an edit)

[Edited on 11-26-2005 by gwine]

I guess the difficulty I have is with the presupposition that second hand smoke caused these ailments. For example, in the case of an office worker there may have been other environmental factors that could cause or contribute to emphysema. Even the building materials in some offices, without proper ventilation, could produce the irritation of the bronchial tubes that would eventually lead to emphysema.

My point is that more than anecdotal information is required to suggest that moderate smoking (one cigar or a couple cigarettes per day), like moderate drinking or the moderate ingestion of red meat, is at all harmful.

 

[gwine]

I can't help you with presuppositions, since we all have our own. But I never started out being in favor of avoiding smoke, 1st or 2nd hand. I know what the end results were for my dad and wife, and after watching my father in law and my best friend's dad die of lung cancer I have no problem going to the other side.

And with that I'll stop, since this thread has been hijacked too much already.

, my friend.

 

[Jie-Huli]

Originally posted by maxdetail
The alcohol content is not relevant to the debate. Until Dr. Welch figured out a way to stop fermentation all grape juiice prior to the 1800s all grape juice fermented. All wine in the bible had alcohol in it. The question was, should a Christian drink alcohol? Slippery slope arguments try to change this into a how much alcohol is a sin. That's easy, enough to get you drunk.

Are we arguing, should a Christian drink alcohol or how much alcohol is a sin? I just don't see what arguing about alcohol level has to do with the debate.

I would respectfully submit that the concentration of alcohol in the beverage is actually quite relevant to the debate. For example, the Bible gives clear counsel against "strong drink". (See Isaiah 5:22 and 28:7, for example). Therefore, if the modern alcoholic beverages contain 27 times more alcohol than the wine commonly used in the days of the apostles and Jesus, I think this at the least raises a problem for those who say alcohol consumption is biblically-warranted while they are in fact drinking beverages that are much, much stronger than the wine Jesus and the apostles drank.

 

[Jie-Huli]

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark

Originally posted by Jie-Huli

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
I'm with Bob, the thread is digressing. Christians have the freedom.

[Edited on 11-26-2005 by Scott Bushey]

Digressing from what?

No offense meant to anyone, but since this thread was started to specifically discuss the book "Should Christians Drink: The Case for Total Abstinence" by Dr. Masters, and since out of more than 80 posts not one other person has actually had anything to say about this book, I would say that the entire thread has been a "digression".

I have a question. I get regular requests to read or comment on this or that book. I don't usually take them up. In this case, it is demanded that I read yet another book arguing the abstinence case.

When deciding what to read, one of the questions I ask is: who wrote it? I've heard the name Peter Masters and I have a vague impression that he's some broadcaster maybe a sectarian of some sort. I don't know.

Why should I read this? Is this person a specialist in biblical studies or ethics or some how specially qualified to occupy my time and attention? I'm not aware that he is. Is this person making new or outstanding arguments never before made in this history of this question? If not, then I don't think I'm obligated to read it just as I'm not obligated to read every (usually self-published, unedited) book folks send to my mailbox.

Call me an elitist. Fine. Most of the books I read have gone through some sort of screening process. They've been edited and selected for publication by a reputable publisher because they have some merit.

Does this work meet ANY of these standards?

rsc

Dr. Peter Masters is not a "sectarian", nor is he principally a "broadcaster" (although his sermons are now broadcast on Sky-tv in the UK). He is the pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle church in London, the church which was pastored by John Gill and Charles Spurgeon in former days. Dr. Masters has been the pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle for 35 years now, since 1970, during which time this church has seen a tremendous revival. It had sunk into compromise and decline and had only a few elderly members remaining when Dr. Masters arrived. But during the ministry of Dr. Masters, during which time he has born a strong and consistent witness for the pure gospel and the great doctrines of the reformation, while taking principled stands against modern errors, the church has been greatly blessed of God and grown to a membership of many hundreds of people, who are also fervent in service to the Lord. Dr. Masters has published books on pastoral ministry, evangelism, Biblical interpretation, prayer, worship, Sunday schools, the errors of the Charismatic movement, the Ten Commandments, and commentaries on several books of the Bible. The annual "School of Theology" he oversees at the Tabernacle draws hundreds of reformed pastors and Christians from all over the UK, the U.S. and other places. And as for screening and selectivity in books, I can assure you that the bookshop at the Tabernacle, the largest reformed bookshop in London, is every bit as strict and selective about which books they stock as any publisher you know.

Does this warrant your reading his book on alcohol? That is for you to decide. My only meaning in the post above was that this thread (before Mr. Bushey wisely split it) was expressly created to discuss Dr. Masters' book. So if you have not read it, and do not care to read it, then my only point is that this thread perhaps was not the place for a general airing of views on the abstention position which have nothing to do with his book. There can be other threads on the general issue of alcohol. But if you are not interested in what Dr. Masters has written on the subject, then what need is there to post on a thread which is dedicated to discussing his book?

Having said that, I would argue that it would indeed be beneficial for you to read his book after all, for the following reason: Dr. Masters is a very mature and sober-minded Christian, and his Biblical learning and studies in the great reformed works are vast. The typical arguments in favour of modern alcohol consumption (which are clear enough to understand) are certainly not over his head. So if he has reasoned through the issues and come to an abstinence position, I should think you might at least be interested in knowing what would lead a man of his depth to take such a stance. To repeat and repeat the stock arguments in favour of alcohol, without really bothering to take the opposing side seriously and see where they disagree in their understanding of the "prooftexts" in question, will not convince anyone who is studying through the subject in earnest.

Kind regards,

Jie-Huli

[Edited on 11-27-2005 by Jie-Huli]

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I must admit I knew who Peter Masters was way before I had ever heard of a Dr. R. Scott Clark.

At the same time I am not so sure that Peter Masters has anything knew to offer in the debate that I haven't already heard. I admit I am being lazy here. I have no desire to read another book on the subject. I will just say that I have other interests in my reading schedule and another book on this subject is out of the realm of interests. Thanks for bringing up the topic though.

[Edited on 11-27-2005 by puritancovenanter]

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by Jie-Huli
To repeat and repeat the stock arguments in favour of alcohol, without really bothering to take the opposing side seriously and see where they disagree in their understanding of the "prooftexts" in question, will not convince anyone who is studying through the subject in earnest.

Kind regards,

Jie-Huli

[Edited on 11-27-2005 by Jie-Huli]

Just curious, whuich of Master's arguments are not refuted by Ken Gentry in God Gave Wine or any other reformed moderationist work on the subject? Would you say that Gentry does not take the other position seriously? What new does Maters bring ot the table?

 

[Larry Hughes]

History of Anti-Alcohol Movements in the U.S.

by David J. Hanson, Ph.D.

Organizations opposed to alcohol consumption arose in the US began before the Civil War (1861-1865). They began by calling for voluntary abstinence but with the passage of time began to insist that no one be permitted to consume any alcohol by force of law. However, the Civil War diverted attention to more pressing matters and interest in the movement largely died.

Following the War, the movement for prohibition reemerged and began growing. A growing women's movement focusing on protection of the family, along with the strong support of many Protestant churches, propelled the movement forward beginning in the 1880s.

After that time a number of states adopted state-wide prohibition within their borders. However, it was World War I that made possible the passage of national Prohibition. The strong anti-German prejudice made brewers (who were generally of German origin) popular targets of hostility, the argument that alcohol beverage production diverted grain needed for the war effort, the lack of organization on the part of those who didn't support prohibition (the "wets"), the effective organization of prohibitionists (the drys), the strong support of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), political intimidation, and the effects of decades of temperance propaganda made possible the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment establishing national Prohibition. National Prohibition of Alcohol in the US describes this subject in more detail.

National Prohibition not only failed to prevent the consumption of alcohol, but led to the extensive production of dangerous unregulated and untaxed alcohol, the development of organized crime, increased violence, and massive political corruption. Although Prohibition was repealed in 1933, there are still hundreds of dry counties across the United States today. Amazingly, some people today insist that Prohibition was a success!

Because Prohibition is now recognized by most people as having been a disastrous failure and currently lacks strong political support, modern prohibitionists are using a different approach to achieve their goal.

Their tactic is to establish cultural rather than strictly legal prohibition by making alcohol beverages less socially acceptable and marginalizing those who drink, no matter how moderately. Like the anti-alcohol activists who preceded them, the neo-prohibitionists of today (often called reduction-of-consumptionists, neo-drys, or neo-Victorians) don't distinguish between the use and the abuse of alcohol. Both should be reduced.

Neo-prohibitionists tend to believe that:

The substance of alcohol is, in and of itself, the cause of all drinking problems.
The availability of alcohol causes people to drink.
The amount of alcohol consumed (rather than the speed with which it is consumed, the purpose for which it is consumed, the social environment in which it is consumed, etc.) determines the extent of drinking problems.
Alcohol education should focus on the problems that excessive alcohol consumption can cause and should promote abstinence.
These beliefs lead neo-prohibitionists to call for such measures as:

Increasing taxes on alcohol beverages
Limiting or reducing the number of sales outlets
Limiting the alcohol content of drinks
Prohibiting or censoring alcohol advertising
Requiring warning messages with all alcohol advertisements
Expanding the warning labels on all alcohol beverage containers
Expanding the display of warning signs where alcohol is sold
Limiting the days or hours during which alcohol beverages can be sold
Increasing server liability for any problems that occur after alcohol consumption
Limiting the sale of alcohol beverages to people of specific ages
Decreasing the legal blood alcohol content level for driving vehicles or other activities
Eliminating the tax deductibility of alcohol beverages as a business expense.
Temperance Groups and Leaders

Some of the many anti-alcohol groups and leaders of the past and present are identified here alphabetically.

American Council on Alcohol Problems The American Council on Alcohol Problems is a federation of state affiliates promoting the reduction of consumption agenda. The Council was known as the Anti-Saloon League from 1893 until 1948, the Temperance League until 1950, the national Temperance League until 1964, and now as the American Council on Alcohol Problems. It partners with George Hacker's Alcohol Policies Project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest and other temperance groups

Resources:
American Council on Alcohol Problems. Encyclopedia Britannica Online.
Asbury, Herbert. The Great Illusion: An Informal History of Prohibition. New York: Greenwood Press, 1968 (Originally published 1950).
Kobler, John. Ardent Spirits: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1973.
Krout, John A. The Origins of Prohibition. New York: Knopf, 1925.

Anti-Saloon League The Anti-Saloon League was a non-partisan organization established in 1893 that focused on the single issue of prohibition. The League had branches across the United States to work with churches in marshalling resources for the prohibition fight.

From 1948 until 1950 it was known as the Temperance League, from 1950 to 1964 it was called the National Temperance League; from then it has been known as the American Council on Alcohol Problems. The current name disguises its prohibitionist agenda.

The best single source of information about the Anti-Saloon League is Peter H. Odegard, Pressure Politics: Story of the Anti-Saloon League. New York: Columbia University Press, 1928, reprinted 1966); the League's archives and other materials are now located at the Anti-Saloon home page (wpl.lib.oh.us/AntiSaloon/)

Resources:
Anti-Saloon League of America. Anti-Saloon League of America Yearbook. Westerville OH: American Issue Press, 1920
Cherrington, Ernest. History of the Anti-Saloon League. Westerville, OH: American Issue Publishing Co., 1913.
Dohn, Norman Harding. The History of the Anti-Saloon League. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1976.
Ewin, James Lithgow. The Birth of the Anti-Saloon League. Washington, D.C., 1913.
Kerr, K. Austin. Organized for Prohibition: A New History of the Anti-Saloon League. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985.
Lien, Jerry.The Speechmaking of the Anti-Saloon League. University of Southern California, 1968.

Califano, Joseph A. Joseph Califano says he felt that he was on a genuine religious mission by creating the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA), explaining that "for me, establishing and building CASA and committing myself to this battle against substance abuse was doing the Lord's work." For Joe Califano, virtually any alcohol consumption is alcohol abuse. One observer reports that " Califano is essentially a reincarnation of the old temperance warriors."

With messianic zeal Joe Califano and his Center have become well known for presenting highly questionable advocacy "research." To learn more about Mr. Califano visit Joe Califano and His Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse(CASA).

Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) CASA has a long record of producing highly suspect papers about alcohol that are later discredited. For example, a researcher "examined some of the references in (a) CASA paper and found the conclusions in the articles to be shockingly different from the way CASA depicted them." Report after report by CASA has been exposed as lacking credibility, leading The Washington Times to observe that CASA has a "proven disdain for the facts." Understandably, scholars have a lot of negative things to say about the Center on Alcohol and Substance Abuse, "some of it unprintable" observed Christopher Shea in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

More information about the CASA is found at The Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse: A Center for Alcohol Statistics Abuse?

Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth (CAMY) The Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth (CAMY) was up and funded by the Pew trusts and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The stated mission of CAMY is to monitor "the marketing practices of the alcohol industry to focus attention and action on industry practices that jeopardize the health and safety of America's youth." It explains that "reducing high rates of underage alcohol consumption and the suffering caused by alcohol-related injuries and death among young people" requires limiting the appeal of alcohol beverages to young people and their access to them." It seeks to create "public outrage" against alcohol advertising to achieve its objective.

CAMY begins with an assumption which it then sets out to prove. In doing so it is clearly an activist group rather than an objective scientific organization seeking to learn the truth. Judging from CAMY's statements and activities to date, it's doubtful if the Center would ever to find any alcohol advertising or any marketing practice to be acceptable. This may be an example of the Burger King phenomenon: Pew and Johnson pay for the research and "have it their way."

Learn more about CAMY at Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth : Its Objectives and Methods.

Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is not a science center but, by its own admission, a public advocacy action center. CSPI demonstrates a continuing pattern of presenting alarming but erroneous and misleading statistics to promote its agenda. A major goal of CSPI is reducing the alcohol consumption of adults, even among moderate drinkers. A full-time director, George Hacker, and his staff work toward this goal through the group's Alcohol Policies Project.

Both CSPI and its Alcohol Policies Project are dedicated to "preventing alcohol" rather than "preventing the abuse of alcohol." They promote prohibitionist and neo-prohibitionist goals rather than public health goals. That's all the difference in the world.

To learn more about the activities of the CSPI visit Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) is a massively-funded federal agency that aggressively promotes the reduction-of-consumption or neo-prohibition approach to reduce alcohol problems: "Less alcohol is always still too much alcohol."

Although it is a federal agency supported by taxpayers, the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention has long been guilty of illegally misappropriating taxpayer money for lobbying, of censoring citizens with whom it disagrees, of self-servingly distorting statistics, and of using its power to abuse innocent Americans.

Some observers think the agency should be abolished. Learn more about the agency at Center for Substance Abuse Prevention.

Coalition for the Prevention of Alcohol Problems The Coalition for the Prevention of Alcohol Problems vigorously promotes a temperance agenda and should more accurately be called the Coalition for the Prevention of Alcohol. It is a coalition of temperance groups co-chaired by George Hacker of the Alcohol Policies Project and Stacia Murphy of the National Council on Alcohol and Drug Dependence (NCADD).

Members of the Coalition include the Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon Church), the American Council on Alcohol Problems (earlier called the Anti-Saloon League), the Temperance League of Kentucky, the General Board of Global Ministries, and the Illinois Church Action on Alcohol Problems.

The Coalition's Steering Committee meets weekly in Washington to set its agenda and plan it's political strategy. For more about the Coalition's organizer and leader visit George Hacker of CSPI.

Hacker, George Lawyer George A. Hacker has headed the temperance-oriented Alcohol Policies Project of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) for three decades. He is Co-Chair of the Coalition for the Prevention of Alcohol Problems, whose members include the American Council on Alcohol Problems (the current name of the Anti-Saloon League) and many other prohibition and temperance activist groups.

As part of his role as an anti-alcohol activist leader, George Hacker has authored and coauthored numerous publications to promote neo-prohibitionism. Hacker's efforts have not gone unnoticed. For example, he is described as "an outspoken anti-alcohol activist by journalist James Thalman in Utah's Desert News and as "the undisputed general" of the forces attacking alcohol by Michael Massing in the New York Times.

To learn about his modus operandi, visit George Hacker of CSPI.

Hunt, Mary Mary Hanchet Hunt, who was born in 1830, became one of the most powerful women in the nation promoting prohibition. As Superintendent of the Women's Christian Temperance Union's Department of Scientific Temperance Instruction she worked at the grass roots level to ensure passage of laws mandating that textbooks teach every school child a curriculum promoting complete abstinence for everyone and mandatory prohibition. She acquired the power to veto any textbook of which she did not approve. And she didn't approve of any book that stated the fact that physicians sometimes prescribed alcohol or any book that even implied that drinking in moderation did not inevitably lead to serious alcohol abuse. That would send a "mixed message" inconsistent with the WCTU's goal of prohibition.

It is indisputable that "by the time of her death in 1906, Mary Hunt had shaken and changed the world of education" with her campaign for coercive temperance education or "institutionalized prohibitionist propaganda." In 1901-1902, 22 million school children were exposed to anti-alcohol "education." The WCTU was perhaps the most influential lobby ever to shape what was taught in public schools. Though it was a voluntary association, it acquired quasi-public power as a censor of textbooks, a trainer of teachers, and arbiter of morality."

Mrs. Hunt's integrity and morality is another matter. In order to deal with the accusation that she profited from reform, she signed over to charity the royalties due her on the thousands of physiology textbooks sold annually. Her never-publicized charity was the Scientific Temperance Association, a group composed of Hunt, her pastor, and a few friends. The association used its funds to support the operations of the national headquarters of the WCTU's Department of Scientific Temperance Instruction, a large house in Boston that was also Hunt's residence. For Mary Hunt, charity both began and stayed at home.

Resources:
Elson, Ruth M. in Guardians of Tradition: American Schoolbooks of the Nineteenth Century. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1964.
Flanders, Jessie K. Legislative Control of the Elementary Curriculum. New York: Teachers College, 1925.
Hanson, David J. Alcohol Education: What We Must Do. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1996.
Hunt, Mary H. A History of the First Decade of the Department of Scientific Temperance Instruction in Schools and Colleges. Boston, MA: Washington Press, 1892.
Hunt, Mary H. An Epoch of the Nineteenth Century: An Outline of the Work for Scientific Temperance Education in the Public Schools of the United States. Boston, MA: Foster, 1897.
Mezvinsky, Norton. Scientific temperance instruction in the schools. History of Education Quarterly, 1961, 7, 48-56.
Ohles, John F. The imprimatur of Mary H. H. Hunt. Journal of School Health, WS, 1978, 48, 477-478.
Ormond, Chart. Temperance Education in American Public Schools. Westerville, OH: American Issue Press, 1929
Sheehan, Nancy M. The WCTU and education: Canadian-American illustrations. Journal of the Midwest History of Education Society, 1981, P, 115-133.
Sheehan, Nancy M. National pressure groups and provincial curriculum policy: Temperance in Nova Scotia schools 1880-1930. Canadian Journal of Education, 1984b, 9, 73-88.
Tyack, David, B., and James, Thomas. Moral majorities and the school curriculum: Historical perspectives on the legalization of virtue. Teachers College Record, 1985, 86, 513-537.
Zimmerman, Jonathan. "The Queen of the Lobby": Mary Hunt, scientific temperance, and the dilemma of democratic education in America, 1879-1906. History of Education Quarterly, 1992, 32, 1-30.

Jacobson, Michael Michael Jacobson established the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) in 1971, along with two lawyers from one of Ralph Nader's activist groups. Both lawyers soon dropped out so now, as Executive Director, Mr. Jacobson now operates his own activist group.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest isn't a science organization but a special interest advocacy group for public policy. Although it assumes the mantle of science in order to obtain legitimacy for its activities and programs, most of the CSPI's "science" hardly reaches the level of a high school science project. And high school students don't have a political agenda for which they distort the evidence or misrepresent the facts as Michael Jacobson and his Center for Science in the Public Interest apparently do.

Michael Jacobson calls for heavy taxes on foods of which he disapproves, numerous prohibitions, lawsuits against food producers, beverage producers, and convenience restaurants. He takes pride in being called the head of the food and beverage police.

For more on Michael Jacobson and his operation, visit Michael Jacobson and His Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)

Ku Klux Klan (KKK) One of the major supporters of Prohibition was the "second KKK." often called the KKK of the 1920s. The Klan was revived specifically to defend Prohibition, the enforcement of which was a cornerstone of its "reform" agenda. A historian has observed that "support for Prohibition represented the single most important bond between Klansmen throughout the nation." Another scholar wrote that "enforcement of Prohibition, in fact, was a central, and perhaps the strongest, goal of the Ku Klux Klan."

For more about the anti-alcohol nature of the KKK visit The Ku Klux Klan (KKK), Alcohol, & Prohibition.

Marin Institute The Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems is a massively endowed organization that aggressively promotes reduction of consumption alcohol policies, equates alcohol with illegal drugs, and repeatedly reports as being accurate the often deceptive and misleading "research" and statistics generated by other anti-alcohol activist groups. The Marin Institute has been recognized for its anti-alcohol activities by the Prohibition Party.

More about the organization can be found at The Marin Institute: An Anti-Alcohol Activist Organization and Marin Institute Recognized.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) Mothers Against Drunk Driving was created in 1980 to reduce drunk driving and the death and injury that it can cause. Over time, temperance forces have gained control of MADD and it has largely become anti-alcohol rather than anti-drunk driving. Candy Lightner, the founder and first President of MADD says "it has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I ever wanted or envisioned." She explains "I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving." More about MADD is located at:

Mothers Against Drunk Driving: A Crash Course in MADD
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) Resources
MADD IS Anti-Alcohol

Nation, Carrie Carrie Nation was one of the most colorful members of the Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU). Born in 1846, Carry Amelia Moore Nation (she adopted the name Carry A. Nation mainly for its value as a slogan and had it registered as a trademark) is best remembered for using a hatchet to smash and destroy bars and their contents (sometimes called "hatchetation"). Between 1900 and 1910, she was arrested 30 times for her destructive invasions of bars. She self-righteously believed she was doing God's work and was highly intolerant of those who opposed her or her actions. She derisively labeled them "rum-soaked, whiskey-swilled, saturn-faced rummies."

Carrie Nation exploited her notoriety by appearing as a vaudeville entertainer, charging to lecture, publishing newsletters, selling photos of herself, and marketing souvenir hatchets. She died in 1911.

Resources:
Carrie Amelia Nation. Kansas State Historical Society
(http://www.kshs.org/people/nation_carry.htm+"Carrie+Nation"&hl=en)
Carry A. Nation: The famous and Original Bar Room Smasher. Kansas State Historical Society (Online Exhibit) (http://www.kshs.org/exhibits/carry/carry1.htm+"Carrie+Nation"&hl=en)
Carrie Nation. Wickipedia.
Carrie Nation (America 1900) pbs.org

Office of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse (AMA) The American Medical Association (AMA) first passed a resolution supporting abstinence from alcohol even before National Prohibition was imposed in 1920 and continues to support it to this day.

Although the moderate consumption of alcohol is associated with better health and greater longevity than either abstinence or the abuse of alcohol, the AMA remains a temperance organization. This may be because so many physicians see the consequences of alcohol abuse, although the vast majority of people drink in moderation that's beneficial to their good health.

For whatever reason, the AMA promotes a temperance agenda. It describes its Office of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse as "a national program office of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation." Not only did the temperance-oriented Robert Wood Johnson Foundation establish the AMA's office with an initial $5 million dollar grant but also it has poured many more millions of dollars into funding its activities.

For more about the Office of Alcohol and Other Drugs and other AMA temperance activities, visit American Medical Association: Abstinence Motivated Agenda.

Prohibition Party The Prohibition Party was created in 1867 to advocate temperance and legislation prohibiting the production and sale of alcoholic beverages. It was an important force in US politics during the late 1800s and the early decades of the 20th century. The Prohibition Party is the oldest "third party" in the US and has nominated a candidate for president of the US in every election since 1872.

Resources
Colvin, David L. Prohibition in the United States: A History of the Prohibition Party and of the Prohibition Movement. NY: George H. Doran Co., 1926.
Storms, Roger C. Partisan Prophets: A History of the Prohibition Party, 1854-1972. Denver, CO: National Prohibition Foundation, 1972.
Wheeler, E.J. Prohibition: the Principle, the Policy, and the Party. NY: Funk & Wagnall's, 1889.

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation attempts to stigmatize alcohol, de-legitimize drinking, and marginalize drinkers. It spent over a quarter of a billion dollars ($265,000,00.00) in just four years alone further developing and funding a nation-wide network of anti-alcohol organizations, centers, activist leaders, and opinion writers to achieve its long-term goal.

An in-depth report, Behind the Neo-Prohibition Campaign: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, demonstrates that "nearly every study disparaging adult beverages in the mass media, every legislative push to limit alcohol marketing or increase taxes, and every supposedly 'grassroots' anti-alcohol organization" is funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF).

More information on the RWJF is found at Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: Financier of Temperance.

Sunday, Billy William Ashley Sunday was born in 1862 and left a highly successful career as a baseball player to become an evangelist who focused on alcohol. He said " I am the sworn, eternal and uncompromising enemy of the liquor traffic. I have been, and will go on, fighting that damnable, dirty, rotten business with all the power at my command." Sunday preached that "whiskey and beer are all right in their place, but their place is in hell."

"While Sunday gained the devotion of millions and helped bring Prohibition to America, he also became the subject of derision. One of his revival songs, 'Brighten the Corner Where You Are,' became a drinking song in the blind pigs that prospered during Prohibition. One line, 'Someone far from harbor you may guide across the bar' called the waiter for another stein of beer."

Although Prohibition was a failure, Billy Sunday was very successful financially and died a wealthy man in 1935 at the depth of the Depression when about one-third of the population was unemployed. He left a large estate as well as trust funds for his children.

Resources:
Allen, Robert A. Billy Sunday: Home Run to Heaven. Milford, MI: Mott Media, 1985.
Baulch, Vivian M. How Billy Sunday battled demon rum in Detroit. Detroit News, October 29, 1916. (http://info.detnews.com/history/story/index.cfm?id=200&category=people)
Billy Sunday OnLine (billysunday.org)
Ellis, William T. Billy Sunday: His Life and Message. Philadelphia, PA: John C. Winston Co., 1914.
McLoughlin, W. G. Jr. Billy Sunday Was His Real Name. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1955.

Volstead, Andrew John Andrew Volstead is known as "The Father of Prohibition" because he authored the National Prohibition Act, better known as the Volstead Act, which provided the legal mechanism to enforce the 18the Amendment to the US Constitution. That amendment prohibited "the manufacture, sale, or distribution of intoxicating liquors." The Volstead Act defined intoxicating liquors as beverages containing more than one-half of one percent alcohol and it gave federal authorities the power to prosecute violations.

Volstead was born in 1860 and elected to the first of his ten terms as a member of the US House of Representatives from his native state of Minnesota. Following the loss of his congressional seat in 1922 shortly after Prohibition was imposed, Volstead was hired as legal adviser to the chief of the National Prohibition Enforcement Bureau. Upon Repeal of Prohibition in 1933, Volstead returned to Minnesota where he practiced law and died in 1947.

Resources:
Volstead, Andrew John, (1860-1947) bioguide.congress.gov/
Andrew Volstead. spartacus.schoolnet.uk
Andrew Volstead. lawzone.com
The man behind the act (Andrew J. Volstead). American History, 2001, 35(6), 50.

Wheeler, Wayne Wayne Wheeler, born in 1869, graduated from law school and within a few years became the attorney and General Counsel for the National Anti-Saloon League and its head lobbyist. He became widely known as the "dry boss" because of his enormous influence and power.

Under Wheeler's brilliant leadership, the League focused entirely on the goal of achieving Prohibition. It organized at the grass-roots level and worked extensively through churches. It supported or opposed candidates entirely based on their position regarding prohibition and nothing else. It completely disregard their party affiliation or position on other issues. Unlike other temperance groups, the Anti-Saloon League worked with the two major parties rather than backing the smaller Prohibition Party. Wheeler developed what is now known as pressure politics, which is sometimes also called Wheelerism.

Wheeler, was the de facto leader of the Anti-Saloon League and he wielded awesome power, as described by one historian:

Wayne B. Wheeler controlled six congresses, dictated to two presidents of the United States, directed legislation in most of the States of the Union, picked the candidates for the more important elective and federal offices, held the balance of power in both Republican and Democratic parties, distributed more patronage than any dozen other men, supervised a federal bureau from outside without official authority, and was recognized by friend and foe alike as the most masterful and powerful single individual in the United States.

By 1926 Wheeler was being criticized by some members of Congress who were questioning the League's spending in some congressional races. Wheeler retired shortly thereafter and died in 1927.

Resources:
Childs, Randolph W. Making Repeal Work. Philadelphia, PA: Pennsylvania Alcoholic Beverage Study, Inc., 1947.
Hanson, David J. National Prohibition of Alcohol in the US
Hanson, David J. Preventing Alcohol Abuse. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1995.
Hogan, Charles Marshall. Wayne Wheeler: Single Issue Exponent. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, 1986;
Steuart, Justin. Wayne Wheeler, Dry Boss: An Uncensored Biography of Wayne B. Wheeler. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1928.

Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) The Women's Christian Temperance Union was founded in 1874 and claims to be the oldest voluntary, non-sectarian women's organization in continuous existence in the world. WCTU membership peaked at about 200,000 members in the late 19th century. Membership still requires signing a pledge of abstinence and paying dues. Current membership is reported at 8,000 members. The WCTU remains active in promoting its temperance agenda and partners with such temperance activist groups as the Coalition for the Prevention of Alcohol Problems.

Resources
Blocker, Jr., Jack S. Retreat from Reform. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1976.
Blocker, Jr., Jack S. "Give to the Winds thy Fear": The Women's Temperance Crusade, 1873-1874. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985.
Blocker, Jr., Jack S. American Temperance Movements: Cycles of Reform. Boston, MA: Twayne,1989.
Bordin, Ruth. Woman and Temperance: The Quest for Power and Liberty, 1873-1900. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1981.
Erickson, Judith B. Making King Alcohol tremble. The juvenile work of the Women's Christian Temperance Union, 1874-1900. Journal of Drug Education, 1988, 18, 333-352.
Epstein, Barbara Leslie. The Politics of Domesticity: Women, Evangelism and Temperance in Nineteenth-Century America. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1981.
Gordon, Elizabeth Putnam. Women Torch-Bearers: The Story of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union. Evanston, IL: National Woman's Christian Temperance Union, 1924.
Pauly, Philip, J. The struggle for ignorance about alcohol: American physiologists, Wilbur Olin Atwater, and the Women's Christian Temperance Union. Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 1990, 64, 366-392.

Conclusion

The activists who promoted National Prohibition (1920-1933) acted in a time when there was little scientific knowledge about the effects of alcohol and they had strange ideas. Consider these ridiculous assertions:

Alcohol is the dirtiest drug we have. It permeates and damages all tissue. No other drug can cause the same degree of harm that it does.
Alcohol is harmful to the body (no level of consumption indicated).
Alcohol is a poison, and drinking it might lead to death.
Alcohol is toxic (no level of consumption indicated).
The effects of alcohol on men (no level of consumption indicated) are that hormone levels change, causing lower sex drive and enlarged breasts.
Alcohol is a gateway drug leading people into illicit drug use.
Alcohol (no level of consumption indicated) can cause deterioration of the heart muscle.
Astonishingly, all these statements, which are very misleading at best, were not made by prohibitionists of old but by officials representing governmental agencies of today. Significantly, the comments are not based on scientific evidence but instead seem to reflect a neo-prohibitionist effort to stigmatize alcohol.

The effort to stigmatize alcohol includes promoting the prohibitionist belief that there is no difference between moderate drinking and alcohol abuse--the two are portrayed as one and the same. This leads the U.S. Department of Education, for example, to direct schools and colleges to reject educational programs which promote responsible drinking among adults and instead favor a simplistic call for total abstinence.

Part of this oversimplified approach is the belief that alcohol is a dangerous gateway drug that causes users to begin using illegal drugs. The supposed "proof" provided is that most people who are involved with illicit drugs drank alcohol initially. Of course, most illicit drug users also drank milk, ate candy bars, and drank cola previously. But don't annoy the neo-prohibitionists with evidence or logic.

Government agencies and activist groups also systemically attempt to equate legal alcohol consumption with illegal drug use. For example, federal guidelines direct agencies to substitute "alcohol and drug use" with "alcohol and other drug use," to replace "substance abuse" with "alcohol and other drug abuse," and to avoid use of the term "responsible drinking" altogether.

Alcohol is also frequently associated with crack cocaine and other illegal drugs by discussing them in the same paragraph. Often the effort is more blatant. A poster picturing a wine cooler warns "Don't be fooled. This is a drug."

Technically, this assertion is correct. Any substance --salt, vitamins, water, food, etc.-- that alters the functioning of the body is a drug. But the word "drug" has negative connotations and the attempt is clearly to stigmatize a legal product that is used pleasurably in moderation by most American adults.

In stigmatizing alcohol as a "drug," however, neo-prohibitionists may be inadvertently trivializing the use of illegal drugs and thereby encourage their use. Or, especially among youngsters, these zealots may be creating the false impression that parents who use alcohol in moderation are drug abusers whose good example should be rejected by their children. Thus, this misguided effort to equate alcohol with illicit drugs is likely to be counterproductive.

Instead of stigmatizing alcohol and trying either to scare or force people into abstinence, we need to recognize that it is not alcohol itself but rather the misuse of alcohol that is the problem. The vast majority of American adults do in fact use alcohol in moderation to enhance the quality of their lives with no ill effects. The neo-prohibitionist attack on alcohol is proving to be not only deceptive and ineffective, but dangerously counterproductive in the effort to teach the responsible use of alcohol.

It's obvious that temperance activists of today are remarkably similar to those of the past in both their beliefs and methods.



Resources on Temperance and Prohibition

Especially interesting and useful are:

Asbury, Herbert. The Great Illusion: An Informal History of Prohibition. New York: Greenwood Press, 1968 (Originally published 1950).

Cashman, Sean D. Prohibition: The Lie of the Land. New York: Free Press, 1981.

Furnas, J. C. The Life and Times of the Late Demon Rum. New York: G. P. Punam's Sons, 1965.

Kobler, John. Ardent Spirits: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1973.

Krout, John A. The Origins of Prohibition. New York: Knopf, 1925.

Sinclair, Andrew. Prohibition: The Era of Excess. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co., 1962.

Also useful but generally more specialized are:

Aaron, Paul, and Musto, David. Temperance and Prohibition in America: An Historical Overview. In: Moore, Mark H., and Gerstein, Dean R. (eds.) Alcohol and Public Policy: Beyond the Shadow of Prohibition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1981. pp. 127-181.

Bader, Robert S. Prohibition in Kansas: A History. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1986.

Billings, John S. Physiological Aspects of the Liquor Problem: Investigations Made by and Under the Direction of John 0. Atwater, John S. Billings and Others. Sub- Committee of the Committee of Fifty to Investigate the Liquor Problem. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1903. (This is the report on the WCTU's "Scientific Temperance Instruction")

Cherrington, Ernest H. The Evolution of Prohibition in the United States of America. Westerville, OH: American Issue Press, 1920.

Clark, N. H. Deliver Us From Evil: An Interpretation of American Prohibition. New York: Norton, 1976.

Engs, Ruth C. Resurgence of a new "clean living" movement in the United States. Journal of School Health, 1991, 61, 155-159.

Feldman, Herman. Prohibition: Its Economic and Industrial Aspects. New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1928.

Hanson, David J. Preventing Alcohol Abuse: Alcohol, Culture, and Control. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1995.

Heath, Dwight, B. The new temperance movement: Through the looking glass. Drugs and Society, 1989, 3, 143-168.

Hofstader, Richard. The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R.. New York: Vintage, 1965.

Isaac, Paul E. Prohibition and Politics: Turbulent Decades in Tennessee, 1885-1920. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1965.

Kyvig, David E. Repealing National Prohibition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Lee, Alfred M. Techniques of social reform: An analysis of the New Prohibition Drive. American Sociological Review, 1944, 9, 65-77. Reprinted as the New Prohibition Drive. In: McCarthy, Raymond G. (ed.) Drinking and Intoxication: Selected Readings in Social Attitudes and Controls. New Haven, CT: College and University Press, 1959. pp. 412-428.

Lender, Mark E., and Martin, James K. Drinking in America: A History. New York: The Free Press, 1982.

Levine, Harry. The birth of American alcohol control: Prohibition, the lawlessness. Contemporary Drug Problems, 1985, 12, 63-115.

McConnell, D. W. Temperance Movements. In: Seligman, Edwin R. A., and Johnson, Alvin (eds.) Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New York, NY: The Macmillan Co., 1963.

Mendelson, Jack H., and Mello, Nancy K. Alcohol: Use and Abuse in America. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co., 1985.

Merz, Charles. The Dry Decade. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1969. (Contains a new introduction by the author. Originally published in 1930.)

Odegard, Peter H. Pressure Politics: The Story of the Anti-Saloon League. New York: Columbia University Press, 1928.

Prendergast, Michael L. A History of Alcohol Problem Prevention Efforts in the United States. In: Holder, Harold D. (ed.) Control Issues on Alcohol Abuse Prevention: Strategies for States and Communities. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1987. pp. 25- 52.

Rorabaugh, William J. The Alcoholic Republic: An American Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.

Rorabaugh, William J. Alcohol in America. Magazine of History, 1991, 6, 17-19.

Rubin, Jay L. The Wet War: American Liquor Control, 1941-1945. In: Blocker, Jr., Jack S. (Ed.) Alcohol, Reform and Society: The Liquor Issue in Social Context. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1979. pp. 235-258.

Schmidt, Laura A. "A battle not man's but God's": Origins of the American temperance crusade in the struggle for religious authority. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 1995, 56, 110-121.

Thomton, Mark. The Economics of Prohibition. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, 1991.

Tietsort, Francis J., (ed.) Temperance-or Prohibition? New York: American, 1929.

Timberlake, James H. Prohibition and the Progressive Movement, 1900-1920. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963.

Willebrandt, Mabel W. The Inside of Prohibition. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1929.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Jie-Huli

Originally posted by maxdetail
The alcohol content is not relevant to the debate. Until Dr. Welch figured out a way to stop fermentation all grape juiice prior to the 1800s all grape juice fermented. All wine in the bible had alcohol in it. The question was, should a Christian drink alcohol? Slippery slope arguments try to change this into a how much alcohol is a sin. That's easy, enough to get you drunk.

Are we arguing, should a Christian drink alcohol or how much alcohol is a sin? I just don't see what arguing about alcohol level has to do with the debate.

I would respectfully submit that the concentration of alcohol in the beverage is actually quite relevant to the debate. For example, the Bible gives clear counsel against "strong drink". (See Isaiah 5:22 and 28:7, for example). Therefore, if the modern alcoholic beverages contain 27 times more alcohol than the wine commonly used in the days of the apostles and Jesus, I think this at the least raises a problem for those who say alcohol consumption is biblically-warranted while they are in fact drinking beverages that are much, much stronger than the wine Jesus and the apostles drank.

From Drinking With Calvin and Luther by Jim West, p. 143-144:

An irrefutable argument for alcoholic beverages in the Old Testament is revealed by the Hebrew word shekar, which is used some 22 times and literally means "inebriating drink." Its verbal form means "to become drunken." With the possible exception of Numbers 28:7, shekar is associated with wine. It is translated "strong drink" (New American Standard, King James Version, English Standard Version, 1599 Geneva Bible), "liquor" (Moffatt), "hard liquor" (Living Bible), "intoxicating liquor" (Complete Jewish Bible), and even "beer" (New International Version).

The shekar was so pleasing to the Lord that he commanded it as a drink offering to himself, saying, "And the drink offering thereof shall be the fourth part of an hin for the one lamb: in the holy place shalt thou cause the strong wine to be poured unto the Lord for a drink offering" (Numbers 28:7). The command tells us that the shekar was good and that the people of God manufactured and drank it.

Shekar is the exact word in Deuteronomy 14:26, which is the classical drinking text for both Calvinists and Lutherans. We may reverently call it the "Moses Stout Text." It reads:

And you shall bestow that money for whatsoever your soul lusts after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever your soul desires: and you shall eat there before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice, you, and your household.

What Romans 8 and 9 is to Arminianism (pulverizing the idol of free will), so is Deuteronomy 14 to prohibitionism. As we see in the Moses Stout Text, the "rejoicing tithe" may be spent for "wine, or for strong drink [shekar], or for whatsoever your soul desires..." The people of God are not only permitted to drink shekar, but are to drink it "before the presence of the Lord," and "in the fear of the Lord" (14:23). Also, the Hebrew verb here for "lust" ('avah in Hebrew and epithumeo in Greek) is the same verb found in the Decalogue, where God commands us not to covet (Deuteronomy 5:21). Only here an amazing thing is said: God states that it is lawful to "lust" after wine, or strong drink, so long as these things are not the cellared property of your neighbor. Thus, the Moses Stout Text commends strong alcoholic beverages in five ways: (1) we may drink wine and Moses Stout; (2) we may even lust after Moses Stout; (3) we must always drink wine and Moses Stout in the fear and presence of the Lord; (4) we must rejoice when we drink wine and Moses Stout; (5) our households may drink wine and Moses Stout with us.

 

[CalsFarmer]

I did not author this thread.

The original auhtor deleted his original post. May I say that this is totally unacceptable? Probably not but said anyway. It seems that this board is pretty well out of control these days.

Moderators??????

 

[mgeoffriau]

Settle down.

The thread was so off-topic (from the thread originator's intent) that the moderators decided to change the title on this thread, and to reopen a new thread for his original purpose. I do not know who deleted the initial post, the author or the moderators, but I imagine it had something to do with that.

The board may or may not be out of control, but I don't think this can be considered evidence for that; if anything, I'm glad they considered how far afield we had gotten, and reopened a new thread for the first poster.

EDITED TO ADD: If you would read through this thread, you would have found the post that explained this.

[Edited on 11-28-2005 by mgeoffriau]

 

[bond-servant]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Beth, You can get the book for $13 (the cheapest new price I have seen) right here.

Andrew, thanks again for the link to Gentry's book "God Gave Wine". It was excellent!!!
I love the research he presents behind the Hebrew and Greek words translated 'wine'

A few neat points from the book:

1) You could just stop here: Isa 25:6 On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined.

2) There is no rhyme or reason to why the Hebrew employs some words for intoxicating wine, and then later uses the same for non-intoxicating wine. There are several words translated 'wine' used in both contexts. If God had intended for us to avoid alcoholic wine, He could have made the matter clear in Scripture. He does not

3) Wine (intoxicating) is part of many sacrifices (Lev 23:13, Num 15:5,7,10 Num 28:14) If wine were evil, why would God require it as an offering to Himself? On the other hand, if He commends it as an offering, He obviously required His Old Testament people to produce it, at least for sacrificial purposes.

4) Jesus drank wine, [obvious from the comparison He makes between Himself and John the Baptist ](Mark 11:19) Jesus made wine as His 1st miracle.

5) Grapes as soon as they are crushed begin to ferment naturally. In Palestine´s natural environment, it would have been impossible for them to keep the crushed grapes from some degree of fermentation

6) Paul commands Timothy for leaders in 1 Timothy 3:8 "not to be addicted to much wine" and "not addicted TO wine" We would have to change Eph 5:18 from "And do not get drunk with wine" to "Do not drink wine"

7) Interesting point on the 'stumbling block' thought: We often overlook the command to the weak in part b of verse 3: Rom 14:3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. The command to the strong is further addressed in Gentry's book.

8) On the "˜potential alcoholic´: Was Jesus and His apostles not aware of potential alcoholics when they partook of wine openly? Luke7:33-35 Was He leaving a bad example for us to follow??

9) How much is too much wine? One can also get drunk on water if one consumes too much in too short a time. Can Google on "˜water intoxication´

10) There are times alcohol is recommended for health reasons: 1 Timothy 5:23 "œNo longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments"
Modern medicine has proved that alcohol in moderation is good for the heart.