Spurgeon on Wine in The Lord's Supper

  I'm putting together a little research on Wine, the Bible and the Believer series I'm planning to post between now and June, 2008.  Unfortunately, this is an issue that's not going away anytime soon. 

As I recall, in over 29 years I've been in the pulpit of Southern Baptist Churches, I've never, to my knowledge, preached a sermon on the 'Evils of Alcohol' or 'Why Believers Ought Not Drink" or "Is Moderation in Drinking Alcohol Biblical?"  Frankly, of those faith communities with which I've been apart, there was really never a need, as I saw, to deal with the issue on a lengthy level (I'm sure I've mentioned the issue in many sermons, however.).  I'm quite sure this issue will find its way to Indianapolis in June.  Thus, this series I'll do between now and then. 

The first 'real post" I published on SBCTomorrow was about drinking wine. I followed it with another and then still another.  Unfortunately, the very good comment threads were lost when I switched from Wordpress to Typepad. Since then, the discussion has intensified and, to put it mildly, cheapened. 

Those who advocate moderation in drinking alcohol seem to either make it out to be Fundamentalist Legalism that is pushing abstinence or turn to corny responses, poking fun at Biblical teetotalers--those who believe a fair case can be made from Scripture for holding to total abstinence from intoxicating substances.

My own practice is teetotalism.  I have practiced such since being saved from my former, very sinful lifestyle and have taught such when I addressed the subject, either publicly or privately. 

I must come clean, nevertheless, and concede that I have heretofore assumed the critics of teetotalism to be correct in their understanding of the usages of wine in Scripture.  In short, I conceded the intoxicating nature of Bible wines and even assumed that the Cana Wedding Wine possessed alcoholic content.  For me, given the extended dilution process of ancient wines--as I mentioned here--there was no comparable qualities between today's wines and those of Greco-Roman times. 

It is no longer clear to me, however, that those who have argued for an essentially non-intoxicating juice our Lord created at Cana are to be so easily and definitively set aside.  From my initial investigation, I think the Biblical scholarship behind their pleas has been largely ignored.  And, the scholarship offered by the major voices of moderation, especially on Baptist blogs, has been scarcely more than 'prooftexting' with a series of favorite verses which 'prove' believers can and ought to drink if they can do so moderately. 

Just as an 'ice-breaker' I thought the two letters written by the legendary Charles H. Spurgeon would be a great opening.  They are taken from His Diary, Letters & Records by his Wife and Private Secretary, Chapter XCII, pages 128-129, Volume IV--1878-1892, Fleming Revell Co., 1900:

On March 15, 1882, Mr. Spurgeon wrote the letter on the following page, to be read at the meeting [Gospel Temperance Meeting] to which it refers : 

Dear Friends,

I am exceedingly sorry to be absent from this first meeting to form the Tabernacle Total Abstinence Society. The worst of it is, that my head is so out of order that I cannot even dictate a proper letter. I can only say, Try and do all the better because I am away. If the leader is shot down, and his legs are broken, the soldiers must give an extra hurrah, and rush on the enemy.

I sincerely believe that, next to the preaching of the gospel, the most necessary thing to be done in England is to induce our people to become total abstainers. I hope this Society will do something when it is started. I don't want you to wear a lot of peacocks feathers and putty medals, nor to be always trying to convert the moderate drinkers, but to go in for winning the real drunkards, and bringing the poor enslaved creatures to the feet of Jesus, who can give them liberty. I wish I could say ever so many good things, but I cannot, and so will remain,

Yours teetotally,

C. H. SPURGEON   

When the second anniversary of the Society was celebrated, Mr. Spurgeon was again ill, but he wrote this letter to be read at the meeting : Westwood, March 19, 1884.  

Dear Friends,

I have just been saying that I should like to be as strong as a lion; but it has been suggested to me that, then, I might not be so strong as I am now.  I am sorry that I happen to be weak when the battle is against strong drink. May the speakers to-night make Up for my enforced absence by speaking twice as well as possible! The theme should fire them. I hope they will be full of spirit against evil spirits, stout against stout, and hale against ale.

Let the desolate homes, the swollen rates, the crowded goals, the untimely graves, and the terrible destruction of souls, all wrought by drunkenness, inspire you with fervour for the cause of temperance. Thank God for what has been accomplished; your year's labour has not been in vain in the Lord ; but let this nerve you for larger endeavours. The drink must be dried up, fountain, stream, and pool ; this river of death must cease to flow through our land.

God's grace will help us. His pity for sinners will move Him to aid every loving effort for the salvation of the fallen.  I pray for a sevenfold blessing upon the year to come. If I cannot speak to men, I can speak with God for them, and I will do so. May our Lord Jesus Christ inspire us with a deeper love to perishing sinners!

With my hearty love,

I am, Brother Blues,
Yours truly,
C. H. SPURGEON

 

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[Byroniac]

Peter:

That's interesting: I didn't know that about Spurgeon. But I find nothing to disagree with in his words. I still believe that Scripture does not condemn the consumption of alcohol as inherently sinful. So I do not believe it is a sin to drink, but drunkenness is always sinful, and it is wiser to abstain. Abstinence might indeed be a requirement in many cases for certain people.

Have you seen these links?
http://trevinwax.com/2006/12/06/
spurgeon-the-drinker-the-rest-of-the-story/
(I have split it apart)

[Byroniac]

Also, in Lewis Drummond's book, "Spurgeon: Prince of Preachers" on pp 439-440, there are interesting comments. It is available on Google books for previewing.

[peterlumpkins]

Byron,

I have not seen the links and will take a peek. I understand, I think, where those are coming from who insist on moderation. Hopefully, some of the things I'll post in the future may offer a challenge to the standard moderation position.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[peterlumpkins]

Byron,

I took a look at the post. Interestingly, the author offered no documentation for his view that:

"Spurgeon never condemned alcohol as inherently evil. He would have been the first to admit that he enjoyed wine as one of God’s gifts."

and

"I abstain myself from alcoholic drink in every form, and I think others would be wise to do the same; but of this each one must be a guide unto himself.”

How the latter assertion of Spurgeon's contentment for everyone to make up his/her own mind harmonizes with the first letter wherein Spurgeon says

"I sincerely believe that, next to the preaching of the gospel, the most necessary thing to be done in England is to induce our people to become total abstainers.

is hard to imagine. "Inducing" others to abstention while conceding Christian liberty in the matter seems, at least to me, a bit of a strain.

With that, I am...

Peter

[J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.]

Peter:

This issue never fails to drive me insane. As I was among Free Will Baptists for over 17 years, I know that this issue alone caused a split in the Bible College in the 1980's, an argument about the meaning of the Church Covenant in the 1990's and the censure and withdrawal of several missionaries in Europe from the Foreign Missions program.

I suppose I only sound one note when I comment here most of the time -- but is this issue really worth it? In communion, whether wine or grape juice means little. I suggest a nice DE-ALCOHOLIZED red wine -- Ariel makes one, as does Sutter Home. But then, Welches is just fine with me.

NO ONE believes more in abstaining from the "recreational use" of alcoholic beverages than I, though Scripture does not expressly forbid such to most disciples. It is a matter of personal responsibility and self-control. And too many people can't or won't control themselves -- so it's much better to abstain than to worry about shaming yourself and Christ with immoderate indulgence.

Sorry if I went on... Hope the New Year finds you doing well and blessed!

J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.
www.mygration.blogspot.com

[peterlumpkins]

My Brother Dale,

And to you a nice New Year. I cannot agree more, Dale, that the issue could be destructively provocative and similar in, but not identical to, James' effectual description of the tongue:

"So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things. How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire!"

I do not want this conversation. I've never sought it. And, of course, while many on the other side of the position I find myself embracing will disagree with me, this particular issue would never have arisen to the temperature it has, had many of the vocal critics of abstention taken a softer approach in breaching it.

This sorta of Cowboy attitude of 'boozin' beer with the boys' while chatting about theology, all the while taunting those who believe in abstention as Fundamental, Legalistic Pharisees of the ignorant sort who simply do not believe Scripture is sufficient, was bound hand and foot, sooner than later, to reap a showdown. Florida, Missouri, Texas and now in my mind, Indianapolis as well will no doubt be another showdown about it.

I am saddened by it to be sure. But those among us who continue to insist--and I do mean insist, Dale--that abstention has no Biblcal rootedness need an answer from the other side. To be continually accused of 'adding to scripture' is a hefty charge, one I myself find highly motivating.

And it really needs to be an answer, not a political maneuver, getting 'more votes' to vote moderationists down. If truth is so easy to peddle, I'm not sure it's worth its price.

If those who hold to moral abstention from intoxicating substances cannot make a fair and responsible case for their assertions from both Scripture and evident moral reason, it seems to me, it's time for them to move on. Muscle can only get one so far in a game of chess.

Not that all will agree. But if someone tells me

a) My position is Biblcal
b) Your position is blasphemous (blasphemous in the sense of 'adding to scripture')

it's really time for me to think through some things.

Sorry to go on so long, Dale. Know I am open to suggestions in making this thing go away.

Grace always. With that, I am...

Peter

[J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.]

Peter:

For the record, I agree with your view on this. I didn't mean to imply that I thought you were wrong in your viewpoint. I was lamenting the fact that this issue could gain such a prominent place in Christian discussion -- in Baptist discourse -- at all, when there are so many souls still without Christ.

I am a Baptist, I do not believe the use of alcohol is strictly forbidden in Scripture (except to "Bishops"), but I believe that abstension is the wise and Biblical position to take as a responsible disciple of Jesus in our culture. It is never a sin to "refrain from the appearance of evil."

Another point I will make, however, is that there ARE those who approach the alcohol issue from the other direction, and insist that no one who partakes of alcohol can be saved -- or that they are not as "holy," or as "separated" as those who don't imbibe. I've witnessed this among Baptists of all stripes.

My take is this: If one is a Baptist, and has as a church member in a Baptist Church agreed to the Church Covenant which forbids use, sanction and sale of alcohol, then the issue is no longer alcohol, but integrity. Do you keep your covenant, or do you not? Sitting around a table slurping on beer and talking theology MIGHT work among Presbyterians, or Methodists, or some of the Emergent crowd. It isn't Baptist -- and I don't think it's WISE for any Christians.

I'll shut up now -- sorry if I stepped in it with you Peter. That was not my intent.

Blessings,

Dale

[peter lumpkins]

My Brother Dale,

My response to you must have released tremors I assure you were not in my mind nor heart as I put together my thoughts. You did an admirable job in clarity in your first comment. It is I who begs pardon, my Brother in Christ.

I am honestly in full harmony with you in your insistence for evangelism trumping sipping beer. I think Spurgeon said virtually the same in one of the former letters when he cautioned the temperance society not to spend all their time going after moderation drinkers but to make sure they did not, in their zeal, forget to save the drunks.

I was serious and not at all disingenuous--nor surely not condescending--in my appeal for suggestions to get out of this thing, Dale. Your experience and obvious wisdom I've noted from the exchanges we've had both here and via email I highly respect.

As for me, I am completely out of fresh fruit on this one.

Grace to you always, needing double doses for myself.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Chris]

Peter,
In 1998, I had a friend who wanted every verse related to wine in the book. I filled 17 pages, single spaced, 10pt font, with verses in and context related to the subject. My concluding remarks to my friend were, "In Deut. 15, you can buy it and use it before the Lord as part of the annual tithe celebration, one time per year. In Eph. 5, People are forbidden to get drunk (does a buzz cross over the line?). So there you have it!

His response back to me was, “So what is the use?” My reply, “I think this is exactly God’s point.”

After further thought, I would have added the following line. Jesus, The second person of the godhead, stated that God permitted divorce because of the hardness of men’s hearts. God’s permitting something is not the same as His prescribing it. Further, would a disciple want to wade into the shallows of hard heartedness in his journey of God’s permission?

I realize this reasoning is too simplistic for some, yet I find great jewels in simplicity, so did Solomon in the proverbs.

[selahV]

Chris...unbelievably wise words. wisdom is rather simply, Chris. It's when folks get all tied up in knots with personal thoughts, opinions and man-centered logic that wisdom walks in and pulls the end that uties it all. selahV

[selahV]

Chris: that should have read wisdom is rather simple not "simply". selahV

[Colin]

Peter,

I look forward to your posts. I recently picked up Peter Master's Should Christians Drink? and am reading it now. This is the first I have delved into the issue and am interested to hear the strongest arguments on both sides.

[Frank Turk]

Peter --

These are two interesting letter from Spurgeon, but they leave me with some doubt as to what your position is.

Yes, I get it: You're an advocate of abstinence. But "what kind" of abstinence? Spurgeon here is not making a scriptural case for abstinence, but a practical case for it. That is, England was being routed by drunkenness -- which, by the way, is a vice. It's particularly interesting that in the first letter he makes it clear that he is -not- against the moderate drinker but against the one who is drinking himself to death.

I'm following the links to your blog from Les Puryear's blog, and I think we're not going to agree on much. But if you could clarify for me what your view of abstinence is, I'd appreciate it.

For the record, my view is that the Lord made wine particularly to be a blessing to man, and that like all blessings its use is not unrestricted. If one wishes to abstain, that's great, but to impose abstinence on others is raw legalism.

Thanks.

[peter lumpkins]

Frank,

Thanks for logging on. As for Spurgeon's reasoning, the letters do not state. And, while I'm aware of the cultural decay in 19th C England, there is no reason to assume Mr. Spurgeon was just being 'practical' unless, of course, doing so is perhaps an attempt to 'square' his view with one's own assumptions.

As for my view, I think I've stated it as abstentionist. Why do you think it matters the 'kind' of abstentionist I am?

Finally, as for 'raw legalism', the point of the temperance theologians, it seems, would be that, it is only moral 'legalism' if it is an action that is morally neutral being imposed upon all as a 'moral law'. For them, drinking poison is not a neutrally moral act. Therefore, it is not moral legalism to impose it.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Frank Turk]

I think that's a fine position to take as a thesis. I think that, as a conclusion -- especially given the book by Professor Nott which you have sourced -- it is going to have to stand up under scrutiny.

I am pleased you have made these psost, and I look forward to discussing this wiuth you -- both here and at my own blog.

[peter lumpkins]

Frank,

I note your openness to consider the evidence, Frank. Already, some who've completely made up their mind about consuming wine dismissed Nott's case before I even presented it!

Thanks. With that, I am...

Peter