Should Christians Practice Total Abstinence from Alcoholic Beverages?

A Personal Question

This is a personal question, and the answer will vary from individual to individual. It will depend in part on knowing one’s self, one’s personal history, one’s family history, and one’s cultural context. Many people who have come to realize that they are alcoholics¹ find that they must practice total abstinence in order to avoid being drunk again. One of these people is former President George W. Bush, who quit drinking at the age of 40 and has not touched a drop of alcohol since 1986.² Others practice total abstinence because they have seen alcohol addiction destroy some member of their family.³ Many people in positions of Christian leadership (such as many pastors) practice total abstinence because they do not want their example to lead others astray into harmful patterns of conduct.

But many other Christians drink alcoholic beverages in moderation and have never been drunk or even close to drunk. Because the Bible does not prohibit all use of alcoholic beverages, my view is that they have the freedom to do this.

Those who have suffered from alcoholism and have overcome the addiction continue to regard themselves as alcoholics. They realize that drinking just one drop of alcohol can lead them down the road back to alcoholism. Therefore, they must engage in total abstinence.

Should Churches Require Total Abstinence from Alcoholic Beverages?

In the past, many churches required people to make a pledge of total abstinence in order
to join the church, or else expected total abstinence for church officers. In my childhood, my family attended a Baptist church where the “Church Covenant” was pasted
inside the back cover of the church hymnal, and it included a promise to abstain from
the “sale and use of intoxicating drinks as a beverage” (if I remember the wording
correctly). Anyone who wanted to become a member of the church had to agree to
abide by that promise.

But I would not favor or support such a requirement. It is requiring a standard of
conduct stricter than the Bible itself. Neither Jesus (John 2:6–11) nor Paul (1 Tim. 5:23)
could have joined such a church. Such a requirement will cause the church to gain a
reputation in the community as “the church where people can’t drink,” and thus it will
become known for requiring a moral standard that does not naturally find an echo in
the hearts of non-Christians (as the moral standards of God in Scripture ordinarily
will do; see Rom. 2:14–15). In this way, such a requirement can become a wrongfully
legalistic prohibition that actually prevents people from coming to the church and
being saved.

What Is the Best Witness to Society?

Someone might argue that a practice of total abstinence is the best witness to a society where alcoholism is immensely harmful. However, that assumes that the best form of witness is a kind of lifestyle that is stricter than what God requires in his word.

On the other hand, a good argument can be made that the best witness to society is responsible and moderate use of alcohol, so that a Christian would not become drunk at a neighborhood party, but would also be an example of moderation in this regard. This seems to me to be closer to Paul’s example of becoming “all things to all people, that by all means I might save some” (1 Cor. 9:22).

Objection: “Alcoholic Beverages in Biblical Times Were Watered Down and Therefore Not As Intoxicating.”

Robertson McQuilkin uses this as one of his arguments in support of total abstinence for Christians today

I believe total abstinence is the most biblical position in twentieth-century America. The principle is one of giving up my rights for the welfare of others (Rom. 14; 1 Cor. 8, 10) in a situation that is radically different from Bible times. In the biblical culture where water was scarce and often polluted, wine was the simplest way of purifying drinking water and was the common mealtime beverage. It was mixed with water, up to two hundred parts water to one part wine. In fact, it was considered barbaric to drink wine that was only half-and-half. Because of the common use of high-alcohol-content beverages today, we have problems the people of Bible days could not have imagined. [McQuilkin then gives sobering data on alcohol-related traffic fatalities, marital violence, murders, rapes, thefts, suicides, and industrial injuries.]⁴

In response, the following may be said:

First, McQuilkin’s claim that water in biblical culture was “often polluted” and needed to be purified with wine is unsubstantiated. Several biblical narratives speak of drawing fresh water directly from wells (see Gen. 24:11; 29:2; 2 Sam. 23:15; John 4:6), and such water ordinarily would have been pure enough to drink safely.

Second, ancient sources that speak about wine sometimes being mixed with water⁵ cannot prove that it was always mixed with water or that wine was not intoxicating in the ancient world, because the Bible talks about people being drunk with wine. The stories of the drunkenness of Noah and Lot (see Gen. 9:21; 19:30–36), the warnings against intoxication (Prov. 23:20–21), and the warnings against being a drunkard (1 Cor. 5:11; Gal. 5:21; 1 Tim. 3:2–3; Titus 1:7) show that, even if wine was at times diluted, at many other times it was concentrated enough to make people drunk. Paul does not say “and do not get drunk with water diluted with a tiny speck of wine,” but “do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery” (Eph. 5:18). And presumably the excellent wine Jesus miraculously created at the wedding in Cana of Galilee was drawn directly from the stone jar and brought undiluted to the master of the feast (see John 2:8–10).

Sometimes such mixed wine was seen not as a normal part of life but as a sign of poverty and judgment. Isaiah’s lament about the corruption and decay of Jerusalem includes this statement:

Your silver has become dross,
     your best wine mixed with water. (Isa. 1:22)

Objection: “Total Abstinence Is the Only Sure Guarantee of Not Becoming an Alcoholic.”

This objection is also raised by McQuilkin in An Introduction to Biblical Ethics. He writes:

The only certain way to avoid alcohol- or drug-influenced thinking, speaking, and behavior and to avoid addiction is not to take the first drink or the first dose of a drug. Though others may not reach the same conclusions from these data, I conclude that the production, sale, and use of beverage alcohol and addictive or mind-altering nonprescribed drugs are incompatible with biblical principles.⁶

In response, first, I will argue below that I agree with this argument with respect to many kinds of “addictive or mind-altering nonprescribed drugs,” for which I can see a strong biblical argument for never taking the first dose. But I put alcoholic beverages in a different category because of the biblical evidence that I cited above.

The Christian life is hard enough without our adding man-made rules to what God has already given us.

Second, I recognize that many people have felt the validity of McQuilkin’s kind of argument and have decided that total abstinence is the best policy for themselves. I respect and support the right of individual Christians to decide that total abstinence is the best approach for themselves, for various reasons. Christians should not put pressure on people who hold such a position to try to persuade them to change it.

Third, the most recent edition of McQuilkin’s book, coauthored by Paul Copan, contains an additional three paragraphs that are labeled as “Copan’s Perspective.” While Copan shows respect for McQuilkin’s position, he says, “I hesitate in urging total abstinence since the Scriptures themselves suggest the festive, social, celebratory place of alcoholic drinks as a gift from God.” Therefore, he argues that the biblical witness does not allow him to advocate total abstinence, but argues against “any misuse of alcohol.”⁷

Fourth, the Bible does not counsel Christians in general to be stricter than what Scripture requires just to be “safe” from violating the Scriptures.⁸ The overly strict nature of such a requirement for all people can be seen if we ask what such a procedure would look like in order to avoid other sins. For example, how can you guarantee that you will never shoot somebody accidentally with a gun? Never buy a gun and never go hunting. How can you guarantee that you will never declare bankruptcy? Never start a business. These are excessively strict rules that Christians would not want to enforce on themselves or others.

Fifth, it is not true that total abstinence is the only certain way to avoid becoming drunk. Another certain way is to practice moderation and restraint at all times. Millions of Christians have done this throughout their lives.

Objection: “Drinking Even One Glass of Wine Kills Millions of Brain Cells.”

I have not found this objection in academic literature, but it is sometimes repeated by students in my classes (who have heard it in popular sermons or presentations). But God was fully aware of the effect of alcohol on the human brain when he inspired the biblical writers to portray a moderate use of alcohol in a positive way in Scripture itself. And from a medical standpoint, this claim is simply not true. Roberta J. Pentney, a former researcher at the State University of New York at Buffalo, found that while consumption of alcohol disrupts brain function in adults by damaging message-carrying dendrites on neurons in the cerebellum, a structure involved in learning and motor coordination, it does not kill off entire brain cells.⁹ In fact, besides warding off strokes, wine consumption has also been tied to decreased likelihood of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease. In short, “The research indicates that adults who drink in moderation are not in danger of losing brain cells.”¹⁰

Objection: “When Churches Require Total Abstinence, No Harm Is Done, and Such a Requirement Might Do Much Good by Stopping People from Becoming Alcoholics.”

In response, I think harm is done when we keep people away from the church by standards that are stricter than Scripture (proclaiming, in effect, that to be a Christian you have to give up all use of alcohol). In the first century, Paul recognized the harm that came from the “circumcision party,” which was requiring something stricter than Scripture and thereby “upsetting whole families” by teaching “what they ought not to teach” (Titus 1:10–11). Paul also rebuked the Colossians for submitting to an overly strict asceticism that proclaimed, “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (Col. 2:21). And he warned Timothy to beware of teachings that required more strict abstinence than God’s word required (see 1 Tim. 4:1–5). The Christian life is hard enough without our adding man-made rules to what God has already given us.

The broader issue here is not alcoholic beverages in themselves but whether we believe the moral standards of Scripture are God’s best rules for our lives. In every generation there is a temptation to depart from the sufficiency of Scripture with new kinds of legalism that God does not require. Therefore, we must avoid two errors: the error of disobeying Scripture and the error of adding to Scripture more than God requires.

Related Articles

Crossway is a not-for-profit Christian ministry that exists solely for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel through publishing gospel-centered, Bible-centered content. Learn more or donate today at crossway.org/about.