THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CHURCH TOWARD THE DRINK EVIL.

White Ribbon, Volume 49, Issue 8, 18 September 1943, Page 2

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CHURCH TOWARD THE DRINK EVIL.

(By Mrs. Christian.)

For some years the prohibition question in this country was considered much more to he a political than a religious one. It was for some time thought that the identification of the Church and religious people with it branded if, in the eyes of some, who might for other than religious reasons support it. with the remarkable term “wowserism.” and the effort was made to bring it into the category of Economic, Industrial and Health questions, and to treat it as the problem for the man in the street and not especially that of the Church-goer, and for this to be the angle of attack. But, as it cannot be said that any greater measure of success has followed on it, we are forced back to the realisation that this is the work of God, in a most practical, urgent, and challenging form. Hence we can look into the arguments put forward in the !>ook we are using for this series of talks; arguments used twenty years ago by Henry Carter, chairman of the Temperance Department of the Methodist Church in England for many years; arguments which are more timely for us here and now than perhaps they would have been then.

We have heard in the previous talks what constitutes the “Drink” evil, its effects on the individual life and home, and it> influence on every aspect of national life. It is the purpose of this talk to examine the matter and try to sec what the Church’s responsibility is. It has been a strange thing to me, during past years, to note how thdse who advocate the abolition of the liquor traffic from the point of health, the economic'., or the efficiency, always, whether they are religiously inclined or not. seem to assume that fundamentally the whole thing is l>ound up inseparably with things vitally rooted in the Christian Church. This being so, it seems a right thing for us to examine the position and seek to satisfy ourselves that it is no fallacy, but a well-reasoned and correct conclusion, that it is a Godimposed responsibility to be accepted by His Church. The first thing to do is to examine the arguments which would seek to repudiate the responsibility. We have heard many oi, these, and should be well fortified against them, so I will not deal with them so exhaustively as Mr. Carter does.

“That the crusade does not lie within the sphere of the Church, which exists solely to win the sinful and to build up Christian faith.” The latter statement is true beyond doubt. But i*. the winning of the sinful only to be sought by the life within the Church, the life of calm, quiet exercise of the religious and spiritual faculties of the declared Christian within the circle of his own home, family and Church?

The overthrow of sin in every human relationship is demanded by (iod a> a necessity for the bringing in of His Kingdom on earth. “To this end was the Son of God manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.” Alcoholism would seem to be the first of those works to be destroyed. If the Church is justified in raising her voice against gambling, immorality, the use of tainted money, the white slave trade, then the vile parent of these and other evils should be the first adversary to be attacked by every weapon of the Christian Church’s armoury.

The second objection to be met is that it i> undesirable for the Church to marshal her forces against any one form of wrong.

Certainly one realises that every form of evil should be challenged by the Church, yet it sometimes happens that one particular evil seems to reach an eminence, to stand out more clearly, and to flaunt itself more insistently than others. An irresistible awakening of conscience, and awareness of the danger attendant upon neglect of its potentialities, leads rigfitly to action on the part of the Christian Church. Such was the case with regard to the slave trade, which had its downfall during the 19th century. The sweated industries of England became so flagrant that the Church and State both awoke and the evil was practically abolished in the last 35 years. Child labour in factories and mines can also be cited as an instance. Is there any room for doubt that at the present time the great monster which boasts its greedy, devouring power is the greatest possible challenge to the Church? Can the Church evade the issue? It cannot be evaded. The time is more than ripe for a concentrated attack. We know well that many of the other evils of the time would loosen their hold on society if this evil were cast out, and this indicates that the paramount one should be faced and overthrown first. Children would have a tetter start in life; mental, physical ai.d moral stamina would improve, and all lite —national, family and individual —wll be immeasurably benefited as direct results of this conquest.

Another argument against the responsibility of the Church in the fight against alcohol is that the use of strong drink is condoned and countenanced in the Bible. As temperance workers, we ha\e met this hardy annual often, and know how utterly it is opposed to every principle of conduct and life advocated and commanded in both Old and New Testaments. It is a blasphemy to twist the acts and teachings of our Lord into evidence of approval of the use of intoxicants. Yet it is done by well meaning people. To us it seems so foolish as to be scarcely worth refuting. But the purpose of this series o\ talks is to furnish ourselves with

something tangible and reasonable in the way of convincing arguments with which to meet these very statements.

The place of the vineyard in the life of the Israelites in Canaan, and certain passages of Scripture in which wine is referred to as a source of joy, are often used to liolster up the suggestion that the use of alcoholic drink is in line with God’s will for His people. Now thrre have been, and are, attempts to prove that wine, as mentioned in both Old and New Testaments, was unfermented. A great deal of research has gone into this question, and some seekers are satisfied that unfermented wine was used at Cana’s marriage feast, and on other occasions.

The point has not been settled finally, however, and it is much better to base our line of attack on another and much more convincing piece of reasoning. For one reference to wine and strong drink as something to be admired and used there are dozens which speak of it as a terrible evil. We all 1 cow them; they need not be quoted here. Nor is there a man or woman alive who would be so daring as to suggest that the teaching embodied in any part of the Bible could ever be construed into anything but the strongest condemnation of strong drink and the drinker.

Another point, not quite so selfevident. is that the Bible, in addition to all that it is in the way of history, prophecy, teaching, and inspired poetry, is also a faithful mirror of the development of the conception of God in the heart of man. Even to trace the development from the time when Jacob realised at Bethel that he had not left God behind him in the tent of his father Isaac, but that “God was in this place, and he knew it not.” down to King David s glorious expressions of adoration of one who dwells in the uttermost parts of the sea, reveals something of the growth that took place. Similarly, standards of conduct grew from a low utilitarian ideal to the knowledge and understanding we realise in the writings of the prophets. To have more than one wife was not considered wrong; slavery, wars in which the assassination of hundreds of innocent women and children was carried out, the use of falsehood and deceit for the obtaining of desirable results, were considered to be in those early seeking days as quite in accord with the will of Jehovah. Every one realises that ignorance and self-interest were the causes of such ideas; and that the slowly acquired conception of a God of holiness, purity and love put those old errors outside the possibility of being belie' ed to be the will of God. Why should the old attitude of some with regard to alcohol be held to persist as a true interpretation of the will of G d regarding it? Just as truly it might be held to be God’s will for men to have two or three wives and as many concubines.

Those who would argue, with as little ground tor their argument, that the use of wine is in accordance with God’s will, can only he held to have their reasoning powers in entire subjection to their appetite, and to he attempting to holster up a course of conduct by this ignorant misuse of Holy Scripture. The same argument holds good of the New Testament teaching. An interesting thing to note is that in the time of our Lord the Jews were a very temperate people. Drunkenness was a vice of the Gentiles. This is held to he the probable reason of the small amount of teaching on the subject given by Jesus. The strongest condemnation i> found in the writings of Paul, addressed mainly to the Gentile Churches. Yet comparative silence on a topic which in that time had small prominence, even though today it looms so terribly large, does not indicate approval. Jesus did not specifically condemn slavery, cruelty to animals, or even wife heating. Is it therefore to he concluded that He approved of these things? I very instinct makes us realise that they who would suggest such a sheer contradiction of all His known teaching come under the burning condemnation given to the Pharisees, whom He called “blind guides, who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.” To love God with all the heart and soul and mind and strength, and thy neighbour as thyself, is the whole duty of man as Christ taught it. In every way His own life exemplified His teaching. The renunciation of self for lie well-being of others was a basic principle; and those who ignored this in their social relations were told that they had better have a millstone hung round their necks and be cast into the middle of the sea than continue to deny their responsibility for their

brethren and friends. Paul’s teaching on the point is so clear and uncompromising that no possible doubt can remain. His advocacy of the use of a little wine for lii> stomach’s sake, in a letter to Timothy, though not in line w*ith twentieth century medical practice, can he shown to reveal a definite refusal to tolerate the use of alcoholic beverages except as medicine. (’n every ground, but especially on that of the danger of influence, he insists that the Christian must refrain from this indulgence. Even if no personal risk of moral lapse may he held to exist in the practice. Paul insists that the weaker brother must he the paramount consideration. There can he no real doubt whatever that the question, even in the early life of the ( hurcli, was un • compromising!)' dealt with. »n our day, when it ’.as assumed a prominence undreamed of then; when the financial interests of huge companies and countless individuals are vested in the production and sale of the evil thing, and the enormous resources thus accumulated are used to strengthen its hold on the life of the

individual and the nation, regardless of all t lie unspeakable agony and horror it causes, can the Church of God hold itself excused if it does not rise in the strength of its Founder and go into the contest with a holy fire and zeal that shall cast down the strongholds of sin. It may he asked, however —even by those whose spirits are eager and ready—“ But what can the Church do?” It is a matter for legislation; and the Church is only a part of the community. Certainly legislation along the right lines is indispensible. But this cannot, in our democratic communities, be carried out except by the will of individual people. So the real thing to be sought is the conversion of public opinion. Only so can success in the sphere of legislation he achieved. Ihe Church can do almost more in this direction than any other institution of our national life.

Education in regard to the question is essential, and the many avenues the Church has of giving this should be fully used. The child, the adolescent and the adult can all he reached, and no minister should rest satisfied unless he knows that they are being reached.

Xow—for the part of the individual Church member. Example first of all. The personal abstinence of the Christian, under all circumstances, is an obvious duty. No appeal can he of any value where this is not practised. Teaching in the day school is another powerful weapon. Ihe authority of the teacher is. during the school years, more to he respected than that of the parent, in the opinion of the child. We all know this to he true, and even though later life may alter that conviction, there is no doubt that the teaching given to the child at school remains as a part of his'house of thought and conviction long after school is left behind.

For this reason the Church should seek to secure such teaching for the children.

The various agencies for the betterment of life generally, especially in social spheres, have a great influence. It should he the aim to seize every opportunity afforded by these to influence public opinion. At the present time, the great women’s organisations, and men’s also, functioning in our own land are ready for instruction in an understanding of the drink problem. Opportunity may come to many Christians here, and we should pray for tact, wisdom and courage to take it. The Church is called to the fight—the Holy War—the Crusade. Not merely the negative “Thou slialt not” of the Ten Commandments, but the positive, glorious adventuring quest for the ideals, purity, health, mental and moral strength and vigour, and the establishment of the right of every child tu health, happiness and free development of his God-given faculties—of every woman to her rightful position in the community, and to every man the power to walk in the freedom

and -pride of his disciplined, enlightened citizenship on God’s good earth. That there was good reason for this angle of approach is clear; and it would he a ridiculous thing to imply that the responsibility of the Church clears Government, Municipalities, Health Officers, industrial ami educational bodies of their responsibility. That is not the purpose of this talk at all. What we are seeking to realise is that the Church has her own special contribution to make; and that she cannot fulfil her mission on earth, which is to build the City of God, unless she realises and accepts full responsibility for that contribution to he made.