methodist's view on alcohol

[mandyangel]

just curious, whats the methodists view on alcohol?

 

[Historicus]

You can read the position of the United Methodist Church in regard to alcohol and other drugs here which comes from the Book of Discipline.

 

[Mr Dave]

The position of the Methodist Church of Great Britain can be found here

But essentially, historically Methodists were teetotal. The reason for this being that in the eighteenth century (and indeed still to this day) Wesley felt that a lot of social problems were caused by drinking alcohol; coal miners would be given their pay, and would all go to the pub, drink away the weeks earnings, have no money to pay for food for their families and then use their wives as punchbags etc. In response to this, a major teaching in the early Methodist Church was to reject alcohol (even though Jesus drank) to promote living without alcohol, to improve the lives of the working class, and keep Methodist Churches a place where alcoholics could be 'safe' from temptation.

Today, Methodists are allowed to drink but are called to responsible drinking, but it is still not permitted to take any alcohol onto Methodist premises.

 

[Aner]

Yikes - these guys would have had a lot of trouble with Jesus - esp. turning water to wine...., etc. (and, hey, check out Deut 14:26....!!!!

 

[mandyangel]

thanks for your answers!!

 

[jacks]

Yikes - these guys would have had a lot of trouble with Jesus - esp. turning water to wine...., etc. (and, hey, check out Deut 14:26....!!!!

Responsible drinking is not a problem. However, if you have ever been exposed to the ravages of alcohol abuse, it would be clear (even without any theological examination) that is something best avoided.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Yikes - these guys would have had a lot of trouble with Jesus - esp. turning water to wine...., etc. (and, hey, check out Deut 14:26....!!!!

No. But we would have had a problem with any guest at the wedding who abused the gift and drank to excess. Given our experience that many stumble over this particular freedom, on the basis of Paul's teaching not to put a stumbling block in another's path, we encourage people to limit their exercise of this freedom by abstaining.

 

[Rhamiel]

my mom goes to a methodist church, the general idea is that drinking is frowned upon but not forbidden
i do not mind it though, but i am not methodist

 

[lucaspa]

No. But we would have had a problem with any guest at the wedding who abused the gift and drank to excess.

But that's what guests are supposed to do at a Jewish wedding. Especially one in those times.

we encourage people to limit their exercise of this freedom by abstaining.

I wonder if that is going to change as more and more studies keep showing medical benefits of a daily or every other day glass of red wine.

 

[Amisk]

Responsible drinking is not a problem. However, if you have ever been exposed to the ravages of alcohol abuse, it would be clear (even without any theological examination) that is something best avoided.

I wonder if there is such a thing as responsible drinking. I note that no man starts drinking with the idea of becoming a slave to the demon of alcohol or drugs either one. Most drunks on skid row in the beginning thought that they were merely having a social drinking until they found themselves with no family, and living in a back alley of some city. Even then there is no hope for them until they admit that alcohol or drugs have got the best of them. The risk is too high to suggest that a man or woman can control their drinking.

It was the Late Arthur Bevan that instructed his family of nine kids that "it only takes one glass to make a drunk." From what I have seen over my life time his simple philosophy, pretty well hit the nail on the head.

The social drinking philosophy is a lie of both the Devil and the Breweries of time. Alcohol is likely the biggest cause of broken homes, abused children, and ruined lives of our century.

 

[GraceSeeker]

I wonder if there is such a thing as responsible drinking.

The social drinking philosophy is a lie of both the Devil and the Breweries of time. Alcohol is likely the biggest cause of broken homes, abused children, and ruined lives of our century.

While I certainly agree that alcohol is one of the biggest causes of many of the ills of our modern society (and not just modern, but I suspect ancient ones as well), I can't go so far as to say that there is no such thing as responsible drinking. The evidence I've personally observed supports both the conclusion that many in society are unable to drink (even a little) responsibly, but also that many others are.

As a student chaplain working at a federal prison, I was shocked to learn that over 3/4 of those in prison where there because they had commited a crime either involving illegal use/possession of drugs or alcohol or while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. History tells us that prohibition didn't work. But the cost to our socieity resulting from the misuse and abuse of alcohol, in my estimation, is so high that I'm not so sure that I wouldn't rather go back to those days.

Yet, even as I say that, I also recall my experience in the Lutheran Church (ELCA). Having been raised in a teetotalling Methodist parsonage, I was surprised by the casual approach and open acceptance I found with regard to the consumption of alcoholic beverages in the Lutheran Church. First there was the time accidently took the wrong cup at communion and got real wine instead of grape juice. But I learned that I could survive it, for sometimes the servers would not notice me giving the signal for juice (an option always available) and rather than make a scene, I would just drink the wine. I don't think my doing so was being irresponsible. And I don't think that the church served wine, when it also made grape juice equally available, was irresponsible either. (Though, as I said above, perhaps some of the servers weren't as responsible as they could have been in paying attention to what people wanted.)

But, I know your point isn't about communion, but about social drinking. And here, too, I learned a thing or two from my time living as among Lutherans. I can recall a clergy conference at which afterward, just as I had done in Methodist circles for years, all of us pastors went out for a time for relaxing and fellowship together. Our conference was in a relatively small town and the options were limited. We had already all eaten and mostly just wanted a quiet place to talk. The pub in the hotel turned out to be the best location available. I remember walking in and feeling a bit strange, because up to that point in my life I had never set at a table with other pastors where so many were drinking a bear. Yet that evening was, as I've said already, about conversation and enjoying each other's company. No one got drunk. In fact, over the course of about 2 hours, no one drank more than two beers. And no one said a word about the fact that I didn't drink a beer, but a Pepsi. And when we were done, we called it a night, said good-bye to one another, and each returned to his/her own room. The conference continued the next day, just as it would have if it were a United Methodist function. People drank, but handled their drinks and themselves responsibly. I would find this pattern repeated over and over again in these Lutheran settings. And what I eventually learned was that beer was selected as the beverage of choice by many not because it was alcoholic, but simply because they liked the flavor. But, selecting it for its flavor, they also were aware that it was alcoholic, and therefore responsibly limited their consumption of it so that it would not impair their thinking, their driving or otherwise negatively impact their behavior.

Is that universally true? No. These pastors handled themselves in all situation better than most. And so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that they did the same with regard to alcoholic beverages. On the other hand, many people handle few things well. And when such people have access to alcohol, they become a problem not just for themselves, but for everyone around them as well. And while I do think responsible drinking is normative for some, I fear that for the majority it is not.

 

[Mr Dave]

I agree that responsible drinking exists, for the most part as well. Lots of people do drink irresponsibly and get trashed, but there a great number of people (sometimes if you take out the under-25's the majority of people) who can go to the pub and have a pint or two, or have a glass of wine with a meal. Having a drink doesn't always lead to irresponsible drinking. After Bible-studies, we regularly all go the local for a quick drink, some have a pint of beer, others have coke, just to catch up on the week (we only have the room in the church for a certain length of time, so we give that all to Bible study), and it causes no problems. This doesn't stop us being aware of the emphasis within Methodism about alcohol, and we would adjust our behaviour accordingly if the situation and present company warranted it.

 

[Amisk]

While I certainly agree that alcohol is one of the biggest causes of many of the ills of our modern society (and not just modern, but I suspect ancient ones as well), I can't go so far as to say that there is no such thing as responsible drinking. The evidence I've personally observed supports both the conclusion that many in society are unable to drink (even a little) responsibly, but also that many others are.

As a student chaplain working at a federal prison, I was shocked to learn that over 3/4 of those in prison where there because they had committed a crime either involving illegal use/possession of drugs or alcohol or while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. History tells us that prohibition didn't work. But the cost to our society resulting from the misuse and abuse of alcohol, in my estimation, is so high that I'm not so sure that I wouldn't rather go back to those days.

Yet, even as I say that, I also recall my experience in the Lutheran Church (ELCA). Having been raised in a teetotaling Methodist parsonage, I was surprised by the casual approach and open acceptance I found with regard to the consumption of alcoholic beverages in the Lutheran Church. First there was the time accidently took the wrong cup at communion and got real wine instead of grape juice. But I learned that I could survive it, for sometimes the servers would not notice me giving the signal for juice (an option always available) and rather than make a scene, I would just drink the wine. I don't think my doing so was being irresponsible. And I don't think that the church served wine, when it also made grape juice equally available, was irresponsible either. (Though, as I said above, perhaps some of the servers weren't as responsible as they could have been in paying attention to what people wanted.)

But, I know your point isn't about communion, but about social drinking. And here, too, I learned a thing or two from my time living as among Lutherans. I can recall a clergy conference at which afterward, just as I had done in Methodist circles for years, all of us pastors went out for a time for relaxing and fellowship together. Our conference was in a relatively small town and the options were limited. We had already all eaten and mostly just wanted a quiet place to talk. The pub in the hotel turned out to be the best location available. I remember walking in and feeling a bit strange, because up to that point in my life I had never set at a table with other pastors where so many were drinking a bear. Yet that evening was, as I've said already, about conversation and enjoying each other's company. No one got drunk. In fact, over the course of about 2 hours, no one drank more than two beers. And no one said a word about the fact that I didn't drink a beer, but a Pepsi. And when we were done, we called it a night, said good-bye to one another, and each returned to his/her own room. The conference continued the next day, just as it would have if it were a United Methodist function. People drank, but handled their drinks and themselves responsibly. I would find this pattern repeated over and over again in these Lutheran settings. And what I eventually learned was that beer was selected as the beverage of choice by many not because it was alcoholic, but simply because they liked the flavor. But, selecting it for its flavor, they also were aware that it was alcoholic, and therefore responsibly limited their consumption of it so that it would not impair their thinking, their driving or otherwise negatively impact their behavior.

Is that universally true? No. These pastors handled themselves in all situation better than most. And so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that they did the same with regard to alcoholic beverages. On the other hand, many people handle few things well. And when such people have access to alcohol, they become a problem not just for themselves, but for everyone around them as well. And while I do think responsible drinking is normative for some, I fear that for the majority it is not.

you make some good points. Sometime ago I took part in seeking to resist a government plan to open a new liquor outlet in our community. A meeting was held so the public on both sides could give their views on the issue. It was clear almost from the beginning that the government people had made up their mind before the meeting began and where not there to listen to anyone who disagreed with opening the outlet.

One statistic brought out in that meeting was that 80% of people sitting in the "hell holes" known as jails in our area where there because of crimes committed from so called "alcohol abuse".

I disagree that "prohibition didn't work". It was never intended to work, just as the prohibition on illegal drugs is not meant to work. Governments saw alcohol, as they now see street drugs, as a tax grab. Mostly because the licensing and sales part of alcohol is in one government department and the cleaning up of the crime and cost of controlling it is done by a second department. Nobody stops to put the two together and thus check the total of profit being made.

It was recently pointed out that the income from liquor sales was in the millions of dollars while the total cost of policing it, if it is possible to measure it, is in the billions.

Had the government been really interested in making Prohibition work, they could merely have stiffened the penalties to the point that there was no profit in it. Legalized street drugs are will be legalized, in time, in Canadian society by following the same route that Bootleggers followed in Prohibition days.

Alcohol like most drug related substances doesn't grab you on the first drink, it is a slow process in which the alcoholic requires more and more booze to satisfy the body's cravings. While you say there is no pressure by society to drink, I believe you are wrong. The truth is there is great pressure, especially upon the youth of today. Hollywood, work and class mates and T.V. paint a heavily one sided picture of good times being had while drinking (just as you attempted to do in your posting). The philosophy of, if you want to enjoy yourself then you must have a glass of booze in your hand is portrayed by all these groups.

The growing battle in our churches over the use of alcohol is one more sign of a back sliding church. You merely have to look at many of our older sister churches who have little if any testimony left in their communities to see what is about to happen in the Evangelical and Methodist churches of the future.

 

[GraceSeeker]

While you say there is no pressure by society to drink, I believe you are wrong. The truth is there is great pressure, especially upon the youth of today. Hollywood, work and class mates and T.V. paint a heavily one sided picture of good times being had while drinking (just as you attempted to do in your posting). The philosophy of, if you want to enjoy yourself then you must have a glass of booze in your hand is portrayed by all these groups.

Where did I ever say, "there is no pressure by society to drink"? You did not read that in what I wrote. That you claim I did tells me that you are not responding to what I actually wrote, but something you have read into it. There is a great deal of pressure by (at least some parts of) society to drink. You named several. I also gave an example of occassion that I have experienced where drinking took by some without pressure being placed on others to do likewise. And the reason was because philosophy was exactly the opposite of what you suggest above. There was no belief that to enjoy one's self one must have a glass of booze in hand. Indeed, to enjoy one's self, one didn't have to drink anything (alcoholic or non-alchololic) at all. Those who drank alcoholic beverages had chosen to, not for the purpose of experiencing its inhibriating effects, but because they liked its taste. Give that they made sure that they limited impairment from those things that you say lead people to pursue consuming greater and greater amounts of it. I submit that this particular group of Lutheran pastos was indeed drinking responsibily.

That is not to suggest that I propose that the drinking of alcohol can be justified as part of public policy because one small group is able to drink responsibliy. But you questioned above if there is such a thing as responsible drinking. My answer is that there is. And further that is rarely practiced by most people, but it in fact is by some.

 

[lucaspa]

While I certainly agree that alcohol is one of the biggest causes of many of the ills of our modern society (and not just modern, but I suspect ancient ones as well), I can't go so far as to say that there is no such thing as responsible drinking. The evidence I've personally observed supports both the conclusion that many in society are unable to drink (even a little) responsibly, but also that many others are.

I am confident you will find that responsible drinking is the norm. You sound like you have not been hanging out in the norm. I will bet you will find most members of any particular Methodist Church are responsible drinkers.

As a student chaplain working at a federal prison, I was shocked to learn that over 3/4 of those in prison where there because they had commited a crime either involving illegal use/possession of drugs or alcohol or while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Alcohol is a a drug. We tend to forget that because it is legal.

What you need to do is compare the number of social and responsible drinkers (even ones who occasionally get drunk) with the number of people in prison.

I think what you are going to find is that, while 75% of people in prison have a problem with drugs (including alcohol), less than 1% of the total number of people who drink do. So most people are going to be like that group of pastors. Even people who like to actively be drunk still use alcohol respsonsibly in that they get drunk in controlled situations and do not do so frequently.

I would like to see data on the number of alcoholics in France and the number of people in French prisons who are there because alcohol was related to their crimes. The French do drink wine like we drink soft drinks. Children are brought up in households where a glass of wine a day is the norm. I wonder if this makes a difference.

History tells us that prohibition didn't work. But the cost to our socieity resulting from the misuse and abuse of alcohol, in my estimation, is so high that I'm not so sure that I wouldn't rather go back to those days.

Oh no. You don't want to go back. The side effects were more than the cost we are paying today.

 

[lucaspa]

Had the government been really interested in making Prohibition work, they could merely have stiffened the penalties to the point that there was no profit in it. Legalized street drugs are will be legalized, in time, in Canadian society by following the same route that Bootleggers followed in Prohibition days.

There was no way to make Prohibition work. Laws, in the final analysis, are not enforced by penalties. They are enforced by the willingness of the vast majority of citizens to agree that the law is just and good and to obey it.

That wasn't the case with Prohibition. Prohibition turned the vast majority of Americans into criminals. People drank. If we had put everyone in jail who drank during Prohibition, there would not have been enough people left over to be guards.

I agree that some drugs will be legalized in time, and for the same reason Prohibition failed. There are just too many people who do not agree that marijuana is a harmful drug that ought to be illegal. What's more, we are suffering more from the criminal activities of gangs who supply marijuana than we are gaining from keeping it illegal. At some point there is a tradeoff where making the drug legal allows 1) you to partially control who has access (such as minors) and 2) get income from taxes on the drug for programs to help those who do abuse the drug.

The truth is there is great pressure, especially upon the youth of today.

There has always been pressure to drink. My generation, my parents generation, and my grandparents generation. It has been considered a rite of passage for at least 200 years.

The growing battle in our churches over the use of alcohol is one more sign of a back sliding church.

I disagree. The "temperance movement" is a relatively modern phenomena. As I noted, in Jesus' time you were not only expected to drink at a wedding, you were expected to get drunk.

Temperance, IMO, is not a vital sign of a church or denomination. Education on the dangers of alcoholism and setting up means to care for alcoholics would, IMO, be a better sign of the vitality of a church than a dogmatic adherence to temperance.

 

[GraceSeeker]

I am confident you will find that responsible drinking is the norm. What you need to do is compare the number of social and responsible drinkers (even ones who occasionally get drunk) with the number of people in prison.

Even people who like to actively be drunk still use alcohol respsonsibly in that they get drunk in controlled situations and do not do so frequently.

In my view, being drunk intentionally is not being responsible. Hence, if people make the repeated choice to be drunk, evne in a controlled environment, they are not engaged in responsible drinking.

I would like to see data on the number of alcoholics in France and the number of people in French prisons who are there because alcohol was related to their crimes. The French do drink wine like we drink soft drinks. Children are brought up in households where a glass of wine a day is the norm. I wonder if this makes a difference.

The same is true of several other cultures besides the French. I suspect that such an attitude does make a difference. Though we would be fooling ourselves to suggest that the French don't have problem with people becoming intoxicated and also with alcohol addiction in their society.

 

[lucaspa]

The social drinking philosophy is a lie of both the Devil and the Breweries of time. Alcohol is likely the biggest cause of broken homes, abused children, and ruined lives of our century.

I think you'll find that cocaine and poverty hold the record in this century. In past centuries, poverty would be the hands down winner.

 

[GraceSeeker]

As I noted, in Jesus' time you were not only expected to drink at a wedding, you were expected to get drunk.

I thought you were joking when you said that before. What is your source(s) for suggesting that one was expected to get drunk?

 

[lucaspa]

In my view, being drunk intentionally is not being responsible. Hence, if people make the repeated choice to be drunk, evne in a controlled environment, they are not engaged in responsible drinking.

Being drunk is not, a priori, either bad or irresponsible. We do all kinds of things to alter our mental attitude: eat chocolate, go on rollercoasters, skydive, drink coffee, run to get "runner's high", etc. To be "irresponsible" means doing these things to the detriment of our own health, our personal relationships, doing our jobs, endangering others, avoiding responsibilities, etc. Not just doing them. Yes, it is easier, perhaps, to abuse alcohol to be irresponsible, but getting drunk or even just getting a "buzz" occasionally is still within responsible drinking. Now, getting drunk and driving is irresponsible.

The same is true of several other cultures besides the French. I suspect that such an attitude does make a difference. Though we would be fooling ourselves to suggest that the French don't have problem with people becoming intoxicated and also with alcohol addiction in their society.

I never said they didn't. My point was that the incidence of abuse may be much, much lower and the percentage of responsible drinkers even higher.

Since several studies have shown a genetic component to alcoholism, with some people being very susceptible to addition to alcohol, there are, of course, going to be alcoholics in their society. Just far fewer than in societies that do not inculcate responsible drinking and alcohol on a daily basis from an early age.