“There are ‘hard texts’ regarding the use of strong drink.  There are ‘hard texts’ regarding race.  There are ‘hard texts’ regarding Anti-Semitism.  There are ‘hard texts’ regarding the inclusion of women and there are ‘hard texts’ regarding LBBTQ inclusion in the church” [from St. John Studies July 30, 2023 “Hard Text # 1].

Gomes begins part two of The Good Book with a discussion of the hard text of strong drink.  Gomes came from a Baptist upbringing with a history of preaching against the use of alcohol.  Not only did he hear anti-alcohol sermons in his church but he also lived in a culture that promoted temperance [for a while].  Historians state that the height of the American temperance movement was the passage of the Volstead Act and the enforcement of the 18^th Amendment.  This legislation and enforcement began in 1914 and continued until 1933.  In 1933, prohibition was repealed.  Some point to the emergence of bootlegging, speakeasies, organized crime, and public discontent with prohibition as evidence that temperance did not change many minds about alcohol consumption.

Maybe this was a situation where temperance forces waged a war within a culture that was not totally accepting of the temperance message.

It was also a situation where temperance religious leaders tried to use the Bible as ammunition but the Bible did not offer much firepower.  Why was this the case?  Gomes points to the unfortunate use of alcohol by Noah in Genesis and the resultant horrible consequences that befell his son Ham.  Other than that, “no doctrine against drink can be found by precept or example among the writers of the Old Testament” [Gomes 78]. 

In fact, Psalm 104 says God causes the grass to grow, plants to grow and food and wine come forth to “gladden the heart of man.”  New Testament references do no help the temperance cause.  Jesus turned water into wine at Cana [very good wine we are told].  As He ends His earthly life with a Passover Seder, it is impossible to think that Jesus and His Disciples celebrated with anything other than wine with the meal.  Paul in giving advice to Timothy says “No longer drink water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments” [1 Timothy 5: 23]. 

How did temperance believers and promoters bypass the anti-temperance cultural forces and Biblical skeptics?  They employed what Gomes calls “ingenious interpretive and exegetical devices.”  The gist of their arguments follows:  we know much more about the moral decay that alcohol can cause than the people of Jesus’ day.  If Jesus had known the whole story of hard drink He would have prohibited its use.  After all, the Godly fathers practiced polygamy but that is no long approved.  The Godly fathers required circumcision but that is no longer required for a believer.  Today we know that some things that were common in Biblical times no longer work.

Another argument is the two wine theory.  One type of wine in use in Jesus’ day was highly intoxicating and another was much less intoxicating.  Noah drank the highly intoxicating wine and suffered severe problems.  Jesus always drank the less intoxicating wine.  This theory [considered by many as very weak] maintained the innocence of Jesus.  Jesus drank grape juice.

Temperance leaders knew that there was great tension between the “ambiguity” of the Bible and their clear cultural admonition: do not drink alcohol.  The cultural context needed a strong Biblical reason not to drink because people wanted to do it.  There are problems with the argument that we know more today about the moral decay of alcohol because that argument inches toward a relative interpretation of the Bible, and literalists did not want that.  The argument also highlights the cultural context so much that it seems to imply that contemporary cultural knowledge can trump the timeless wisdom of God’s word.  People seeking a literal interpretation of the Bible believe the Bible’s message is timeless.

As mentioned previously, prohibition was repealed in 1933 and the idea of prohibiting alcohol from the American population became just another failed social experiment.  Culture won and the church was defeated.

How could the church have won this war?

I find it interesting that Gomes provides the answer from the writing of theologian Roland Bainton.  Bainton [writing in 1958*] states that Biblical principles indeed lead one to the conclusion that the Christian should practice total abstinence.  The key word he used is “principle,” the idea that the spirit of God’s word is more important that literal precedent and the principles of the Bible are meant to guide Christian living. 

In essence Bainton is taking a “big picture view” of Scripture.  For example when Paul states that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, he is really saying that it should not be abused. Alcohol can certainly abuse the human body if it is not consumed in moderation.  Another Pauline scripture states that the stronger believer should bear with the weaker and set an example for the weaker believer to follow [“it is not right to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble” Romans 14: 20-21].  Gomes writes “Bainton liberates us from a simpleminded bondage of texts whose context may be unrelated and unhelpful to our own.  In other words, to be Biblical may well mean to move beyond the Bible itself to the larger principles that can be derived from the Christian faith of which the Bible is a part” [82]. 

This is the idea that the whole is larger than the sum of its parts.  “the Bible must be understood not as a thing in and of itself but as a part of the whole teaching and practice of the Christian faith….To argue policy from Biblical situations requires a more demanding criterion: that we seek after the lively Christian principle that transcends the particularities of the Bible situation and with which we understand both those situations and our own” [Gomes, 82].

There are significant reasons why this theology does not work for many Christians.  Many try to take the Bible literally and if the “map does not fit the ground,” they are not likely to say that the map is wrong.  This is not to say that the “bigger picture” does not matter but that view should not dilute God’s word.  Billy Graham believes “Truth is timeless and doesn’t differ from one age to another.  Customs may change but the all-providing truth stands for eternity and is designed to bring about holy living.”

As Gomes tries to make his case for strong drink, he points out that Christians who frown on alcohol use do not have strong Biblical backing for their views.  It did not matter; temperance advocates got nineteen years of prohibition in America without the strong Biblical evidence that was warranted. 

When we return to Gomes, he will look at another “hard text”: the idea of the Bible and race. 

*In the Protestant journal “Christianity Today”