Talk:Christian views on alcohol

Patron Saint of Beer

Was claimed to be St Adrian, but he's not listed here. Googling shows that an earlier Adrian may well be the correct one, so for the time being, I've unlinked this to avoid confusion. Rodhullandemu 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to note it, but I fixed this. The claim was correct, but the link was pointing to the wrong person. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

POV?

User:Rursus put two POV flags on this sentence from the article: "Since nearly all Christians base their views of alcohol, in whole or in part, on their understanding of what the Bible says about it, the Bible is the single most important source on the subject, followed by Christian tradition." The given reasoning was that "the Bible is the single most important source on the subject" is "Trying to sneak in a POV!!" and that tradition being the second most important source on the topic is POV because "protestants don't generally adher to a 'tradition'."

How could this sentence be better expressed and with more neutrality? It is well qualified enough with "nearly all" and "in whole or in part". Who is being excluded? What POV is being pushed? It seems to me to fit Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican and Protestants pretty well.

Also, Protestants most certainly do adhere to tradition. Some fundamentalists (speciously) claim to have "no creed by Christ" (though how they think about Christ is remarkably well aligned with existing traditions), but nearly all evangelicals, for instance, explicitly adhere to some form of tradition like Nicea and Chalcedon on the Trinity. Moreover, different groups like Reformed, Methodist, Baptist, etc. have developed their own the traditions (including confessions, creeds, and catechisms) which are viewed as having subsidiary authority and are tests of orthodoxy. Sola scriptura and Prima scriptura do not mean "no tradition"; rather, they mean Scripture is the final, authoritative word. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I revised it. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

SBC

The prohibitionist section at the end lists the SBC as prohibitionists. But the linked 2006 statement doesn't seem to me to be prohibitionist. It does not, for instance, say that the Bible prohibits alcohol. It only says that the Bible warns about the dangers of alcohol. Moreover, it claims empirical data, which also sounds abstentionist (though it could be a supplement to a prohibitionist position). On the other hand, it also says that alcoholic beverages shouldn't be manufactured, which sounds prohibitionist, but as a matter of logic does not have to be. Thus, one can hold that use of alcohol is imprudent in our day and age, and that for the same reason it is imprudent to manufacture or sell alcohol. Pruss (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right that the second reference for the SBC could be taken to be either abstentionist or prohibitionist and doesn't detail exactly what the SBC believes the biblical position is, but the first reference, which AFAICT has not been repealed or superseded, calls the use/sale of alcohol "unholy" and "folly and sin", not just imprudent or unwise. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

SBC vs alcohol! The SBC 2006 resolution is SBC's 62nd resolution against alcohol since 1886! Officelamp (talk) 04:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Secular temperance movement

User:Chris Henniker added these sentences to the section on the temperance movement:

At the same time, there were secular temperance organisations connected to the labour movement. A good example would be the Scottish Prohibition Party, founded by Bob Stewart, who followed the British Labour Party on all other issues. There was a Marxist offshoot called the Prohibition and Reform Party, which later became part of the Communist Party of Great Britain in 1920.

I removed them (without much of an edit message -- sorry), not because they are false (there are no sources given here, but I don't have reason to suspect their veracity), but because they constitute a factoid of minor relevance to the topic of that section and the article as a whole. Just trying to keep it focused as a summary rather than exhaustive detail. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there should be a mention of secular temperence movements, just to give the bigger picture. The temperance movement was even connected to early feminism as well, so it should be explored. Chris Henniker (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It's fine for them to be explored in the larger web of articles related to the temperance movement. I just don't think that they should be explored here in this article which is, per the title, concerned with Christian views and which is already quite long. (Consider: Why not also include Muslim views, Judaic views, Hindu views, etc.? These would also be beyond the stated scope.) Perhaps in Temperance movement or a new "Main article" or "See also" to a subsection thereof, e.g., Secular views of the temperance movement? --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Edits by Einie101

I reverted some edits by User:Einie101. Here's why.

• Wine vs. "fruit of the vine" was adequately explained and sourced in footnotes. No need to clutter up the main text.
• The additional, inspecific reference to Patton's booklet doesn't add anything. It could come back if it had a page number and/or a quote specifically related to the claim being sourced there.
• Amish, Old Order Mennonites, and Conservative Mennonites were all added to the list of abstentionists. This should be sourced from official church teachings, but watch the distinction between abstentionists and prohibitionists (the key difference being, is it a sin to drink or not, according to their official teaching?). Also, it's overkill to include three relatively small groups in the same family. One will do -- the largest or most prominent (Amish?).
• The medical claim was (1) unsourced as far as its factuality and (2) not relevant to an article about religious views (not medical views) of alcohol. These problems could be overcome and the sentence restored if it were sourced to a prominent abstentionist making the claim. Something like "Soandso, head of the ethics council for the General Conference Mennonite Church, said his denomination does not drink alcohol because 'the body doesn't break it down the same way as sugar ... '[ref to webpage or other published work where he said this]"

Let me know if you have any concerns or questions about this. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

"wine" in section "Reformation"

The mere references to "bread and wine" by the reformation confessions have been subtlety misconstrued by this section. (Consider: it is a subsection within a section on Alcohol: "Alcohol in Christian history and tradition".)

The precise meaning of "wine" is understood variously by various people - some narrowly, some not. (Anyway, the Bible itself never uses the actual word "wine" in reference to the Lord's Supper. It says "fruit of the vine", "the cup".)

It is misleading for the article to imply that everybody in the reformation necessarily rejected "must" as something improper for the Lord's Supper. (Even before the reformation, Aquinas etc. did not.)

If some persons (Roman Catholic or Protestant, or whoever) did use a bit of fermented wine for the sacrament - it does not follow that they also strongly insisted on excluding "must" wine for the sacrament.

So I suggest this section be reworded so that it won't overstate the historical importance of the passing reference to "bread and wine" by reformation confessions. Officelamp (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This is unnecessary because the article as it stands represents a broad consensus of historians, theologians, etc. from Jewish, Christian, and secular traditions and the literature they have produced on the subject, and it also gives some space to those like yourself who take a minority view. Wikipedia is a collection of generally received knowledge, and I believe the paragraph in question qualifies as written.

Moreover, must is not even mentioned in that section. I take your point to be that you think they (who exactly?) may sometimes mean "must" when they said "wine." Why do you think this? What reliable sources do you have documenting this? I don't think any of the Magisterial Reformers would reject must as invalid, but they, like Aquinas (see the section on the Middle Ages), wouldn't have preferred it to mature wine. --Flex (talk/contribs) 22:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Relevance: remember the article is about alcohol and this section is about alcohol. The article is not a discussion of all things concerning the Lord's Supper - except specifically as these things relate to Christian views on alcohol.

You seem to be agreed: we have no reason to think the reformers would have rejected must as invalid for the Lord's Supper. But after the time of the reformers, we know some people do now reject it as invalid - even for converted alcoholics. It appears they do go beyond what some would say: "the best interests of the converted alcoholic are served by having wine in the communion service." (Vos)

If any readers may now be given the idea that the reformers etc. had likewise rejected any must in the Lord's Supper (even for former alcoholics etc.) then what relevant "reliable sources" are provided to document it?

Yet if we have no relevant sources to show the reformers (or others before the reformers) always rejected must as invalid, and if the article can give readers the contrary impression by using irrelevant quotes, then why can't the article be improved? You like relevant verification? I do also.:-) Officelamp (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I still don't quite follow what you're trying to get at. Yes, the Reformers, like St. Thomas before them, would have allowed must in communion when wine was not available, but ordinarily they would expect wine in communion, as the confessions indicate, and when they used the word "wine" in their writings, sermons, and confessions they were generally not thinking of must because wine *was* available (cf. Calvin's salary and Luther's many comments related to wine).

They believed that ordinary wine is what Jesus used at the Last Supper, as did everyone else until around the 1800s. They probably would have allowed other substitutions of the elements at need, but those don't deserve mention here either, as the section is rightly summarizing the common case, not extraordinary circumstances.

As for alcoholism, that is an anachronistic concept for the Reformers, who came well before the medicalization of what they called the sins of drunkenness or dissipation as alcoholism. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)