Thursday 7 August 2014

ALCOHOL & CHRISTIAN’S

Also, we find here that intoxication tends toward sensuality, inasmuch as Noah ‘uncovered himself.’  Ellicott says, ‘It was no accident, but a willful breach of modesty.’”
QUESTION: WHAT SHOULD BE THE CHRISTIAN’S POSITION IN RESPECT TO ALCOHOL?
ANSWER:And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent(Gen. 9:21)
This is speaking of Noah.   The situation with Noah is the first mention of wine in the Bible, or any type of intoxicating beverage for that matter. 
Some have claimed that the fermentation process didn’t exist before the flood and that, consequently, Noah was not familiar with the possible product of the grape; however, there is no proof of such a thing and, in fact, the Hebrew language indicates that the Patriarch was familiar with what could be done with the grape as it regards fermentation.  As well, Moses does not say this was the first occasion on which the Patriarch tasted fermented liquor (Moses wrote Genesis). 
Since the sin of Noah, and it was sin, cannot be ascribed to ignorance, we can only ascribe it to the weakness of the human being.  
Also, we find here that intoxication tends toward sensuality, inasmuch as Noah “uncovered himself.”  Ellicott says, “It was no accident, but a willful breach of modesty.”  
Inasmuch as the first mention of intoxicating beverage in the Bible revealed such a shameful episode, we cannot help but garner from this illustration as given by the Holy Spirit through Moses concerning Noah, the lesson that is being taught here.
 What should our stand be as a Christian, as it regards alcohol?
 Is moderate drinking permissible?
 Is alcoholism a disease or a sin? 
Due to the seriousness of this matter, I think it would be proper for us to give it a little more thorough treatment.
ALCOHOL 
Back in the 1980’s, the News Media seemed inordinately preoccupied with nuclear energy protestors, as if it was their civic duty to convince the American public that nuclear power was extremely dangerous.  In view of this constant media barrage against this particular industry, which incidentally caused the stoppage of all construc-tion of nuclear power plants, we are now experiencing a severe power shortage.  
In view of this, I would like to focus on another subject of even more consequence — and I’d like to use the Media’s rhetoric regarding nuclear power plants, as they then claimed such to be:
What if 40-50 people were killed every day by malfunctioning nuclear power plants?
 What if such malfunction seriously injured 1,500 more every day?
 What if the presence and influence of nu-clear plants caused 8-20 people per day to commit suicide?
 What if the secondary effects of nuclear power caused 200 broken homes each day?
 What if it caused 250 people each day to suffer permanent brain damage — besides the injuries already described?
 What if it caused some 3,000 parents to abuse their children, or to assault loved ones each day?
 What if it caused 50 billion dollars a year in direct damages, and an inestimable amount in indirect damages every year? 
For every ten automobiles on the road, one is driven by a drunk.  It’s no wonder that 40,000 people a year are killed because of alcoholics behind the wheel.
Awesome and disturbing statistics?  
Well, if you will “double” every figure I have just cited, you will have a fragmented picture of the effects of alcohol on American society today.  In view of the fact that after decades of use, there hasn't been a single case of a person in the public sector being injured by nuclear power plants, one would have to question why the Media remains silent on alcohol’s effects, while carrying on a scathing campaign against other things.  I can’t answer that, but we can probe the reason behind the Media’s silence on the alcohol question.  But first, remember this. 
Alcohol is responsible for: 
 50 percent of all automobile fatalities.
 80 percent of all home violence.
 30 percent of all suicides.
 60 percent of all child abuse.
WHAT IS THE CAUSE OF ALCOHOLISM? 
According to statistics, there are about 20 million alcoholics in this nation, a figure which is equivalent to two out of every five heavy drinkers.  Actually, I find it hard to see the difference between the alcoholic and the heavy drinker.  Think about it: 
For every ten automobiles on the road, one is driven by a drunk.  It’s no wonder that 40,000 people a year are killed because of alcoholics behind the wheel.  In addition, over one million are injured — some never to function normally again. 
Incidentally, it is a scientific fact that if it takes ten beers to make a person drunk, one beer makes them one tenth drunk.  That means, according to the amount of alcohol consumed, whether little or much, that a person is not in full control of his faculties.  That’s the reason for the accidents.  Accidents?
SICKNESS OR SIN? 
I picked up an article some time back written by a Minister.  Unfortunately, his name wasn’t credited, so I have no way of acknowledging him for his statement.  What he said was excellent, however, and I want to share it with you.  
He asked the question, “What is wrong with the drunkard?”  And then went on to say this:
Years ago, while holding a city-wide Meeting in Salinas, California, I was attracted through an article in the daily paper, to a Convention to be held in a Northern California town.  Psychiatrists from all over America were coming out to the coast for this Convention.
The object of the Convention was the thing that attracted me.  They announced as their project . . . the discovery of what causes alcoholism, and then to suggest a cure.  Here is the sum of the findings of this body. 
They stated that an alcoholic is not a moral degenerate, but a sick man. He can’t help being sick anymore than an asthmatic or arthritic.  
(Notice the lack of personal responsibility.)
No, the problem isn't a sickness, and it’s not in the genes.  It’s not heredity, and it’s certainly not God.
He should not be picked up in a police car and thrown in jail, but should be picked up in an ambulance and put in a hospital.  He shouldn't be treated as a moral degenerate, but a respected member of society who is sick. 
That was the trend of thought all through the deliberation, and not once during the Convention was whisky mentioned.  The closest to it was the word ‘alcoholism.’  They never said if a man simply didn’t drink, he would have no problem.  No such ugly insinuations were made.
The final session was the clincher.  Headlines in the San Francisco paper stated:  Psychiatrists decide,’ then, in smaller print, ‘alcoholism is caused by an unknown quantity that we shall choose to call X” . . . until this unknown quantity can be isolated and defined, we have no suggested cure.’” 
The Minister went on to state, I would hate to be an alcoholic depending on psychiatrists to help me!” 
I can only say “Amen” to that. 
I am not a psychiatrist, but I know what makes men and women alcoholics.  I’m certain it is not, as one alcoholic figured it:  he railed against God for having done this to him.  He shook his fist at his genes, at his heredity, at his father.  He felt he had been programmed before birth to be a victim of alcohol.   
No, the problem isn't a sickness, and it’s not in the genes.  It’s not heredity, and it’s certainly not God.   
The problem is “sin — which results in an even more frightening word — bondage.
TODAY THE BIG EXCUSE FOR ALMOST EVERYTHING IS “SICKNESS” 
Today, everyone is sick:  the alcoholic, the thief, the child molester, the rapist, and the murderer.  As one august Supreme Court Justice said some time ago, Every-body ought to be turned out of prison, because the prisoners are not really guilty; it’s all of society that’s responsible.  This statement might be humorous if it weren't so “stupid.”  
You see, the Bible says that men are liars, thieves, drunkards, immoral — and all the other things mankind is inevitably prey to — simply because they are sinners.  They have turned their backs on God.  Man is a product of the Fall.  His Salvation lies not in treatment of a “sickness,” but in treatment of his sin — and Jesus took care of this at Calvary.  Until men accept this treatment, they will not be cured.  And, in fact, treatment is not really the correct word that should be used, but rather “deliverance.”   
But the problem is people want to escape the bondage of alcohol, without accepting Christ.  I’m sorry, but there is no other answer to the ills of man.
Our Lord said concerning this: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me . . . to preach Deliverance to the captives(Lk. 4:18)
When Jesus died on Calvary’s Cross, He addressed every sin, every bondage, every perversion, and every aberration that may attach itself to mankind, and did so by the giving of Himself as a Perfect Sacrifice, which was accepted by God.  When the believing sinner places his Faith in Christ and what Christ did for us at the Cross, the Holy Spirit will then help such a person, Who, to be sure, has the Power, and because He is God.  In fact, this is the only cure, the Deliverance afforded by Christ.
THE GREAT PROBLEM 
But the problem is people want to escape the bond-age of alcohol, without accepting Christ.  I’m sorry, but there is no other answer to the ills of man.  It is Jesus Christ and what He did for us at the Cross, and that is the only answer.  
At least one of the reasons that the world of psychology labels alcoholism as a disease is the effort to escape responsibility.  One of Satan’s favorite ploys is to make someone else responsible!  
But what does the Bible say? It says, “All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God.(Rom 3:23)
Of course, man doesn't want to hear that.  He doesn't want to admit he’s a sinner and that he’s lost.  Most of all, he doesn't want to admit that unless he comes to God he will remain eternally lost.  So we give it a new name.  We call it a disease or a sickness.  Well, listen to this.  If it’s a disease, it is the only disease . . .
 That is contracted by an act of the will.
 That requires a license for distribution.
 That is bottled and sold.
 That requires outlets for its sale.
 That produces revenue for the Government.
 That promotes crime.
 That is habit-forming.
 That is spread by advertising.  (Can't you see this in the supermarket’s ad?  “Get Coors, it’s the best disease we have in the store. For which we are fined and imprisoned when we exhibit its symptoms.
 Which brings death on the highway.
 Without a bacterial or viral cause, and for which there is no corrective medicine.
 Last but not least, alcoholism bars the patient from Heaven.  For the Bible clearly states in  I Corinthians 6:10 that no drunkard shall inherit the Kingdom of God (and I hasten to point out that while no drunkard will inherit the Kingdom of God, the Power of God can set the drunkard free and make him a fit subject for the portals of Glory — just as it can for anyone else).  
No, alcoholism is not a disease.  So this crutch that is being used by the medical profession, the Psychiatrist, the Psychologist, and many others is merely that — a crutch.  It serves to shift blame (and thus, remove the responsibility) from the one who is actually to blame, and that is the individual himself.
WHO PROMOTES ALCOHOL? 
Constant attention is drawn to the terrible use of such mind-destroying drugs as heroin, marijuana, and cocaine, etc., and this should be done, but very little is being said about the most sinister drug of all — alcohol — the drug that is destroying our nation.  It causes untold pain and suffering, and there is scarcely a word said against it.  The newspapers are silent, newsmen seem unaware of the problem, and the pulpits (sad to say) are almost silent.  As one realizes the tremendous amount of physical, financial, moral, and spiritual damage wrought by alcohol, one can't help but ask,
Why?”  
Of course, the answer is obvious.  Whereas cocaine, heroin, and other drugs are considered to be outside the limits of “decent society,” alcohol has been socially accepted.  
Why is this so?
 Because it kills a little more slowly than the other type of drugs.
 Because there are vast amounts of money to be made from alcohol and the same people who control the distribution of alcohol control the dissemination of the information that influences people to use alcohol.
TELEVISION AND MOVIES PROMOTE ALCOHOL 
It is a sad fact that the image of alcohol is tremendously manipulated on Television.  In one recent survey it was found that alcohol related violence was twenty-five times higher in real life than on Television dramas.  In other words, the sinister aspects of alcohol are greatly downplayed on TV programming.  
Again, I ask why
Well, one should keep in mind that the TV Networks receive millions of dollars in revenues from beer and wine accounts.  
The facts show us that fifty percent of real-life balance is associated with alcohol consumption!
A short time ago one of our Telecasts was censored because we mentioned the name of a specific brewery on one of the programs.  Should this shock us?  Not if we consider beer and wine accounts that keep TV Stations operating in the black.  No one who loves money will bite the hand that feeds him.  
Dr. Thomas Radecki of the National Coalition on Television Violence recently stated, “With the new research in the past two years, it is increasingly clear that TV advertising and program use of alcohol is playing a major role in the increasing abuse of alcohol.”  
Radecki noted that the average child will see alcohol consumed 75,000 times on TV before he reaches the legal drinking age!  When he must make his personal decision in regard to drinking, what will the subliminal influences tell him?  That the “in people,” those who are bright, sophisticated, and successful on Television are almost inevitably seen holding a drink in their hands.  In other words, as far as Hollywood and network television people are concerned, if you are bright and smart, you too will have a drink in your hand. 
He also observed that on network programming the typical viewer sees 5,000 incidents of alcohol intake per year.  Ninety-nine percent of these cases of drinking will be portrayed as favorable or at least neutral!
THE REAL WORLD 
Another question must be asked.
Is this what life is like in the real world?
The facts show us that fifty percent of real-life balance is associated with alcohol consumption! On Television, only one percent of televised violence is associated with drinking.  Dr. Radecki believes that TV’s benign portrayal of alcohol consumption is one of the major reasons why alcohol abuse and violence are the two most rapidly increasing causes of death in the United States.  
A total of seventy-six percent of those shown drinking any kind of beverage on television will be shown drinking alcohol.  
TV characters spend twice as much time drinking alcohol as tea or coffee.  They consume fourteen times more liquor and beer than soft drinks, and they drink fifteen times more alcohol than water, or at least it is promoted as such, whatever is in the glass.  Television viewers will see an average of three incidents of alcohol consumption for each hour they watch during prime time.  Those watching daytime TV will see six instances of drinking per hour.  (Obviously soap opera characters have a higher percentage of alcoholism than the evening characters have.)
They're in the business of selling the poison they produce; however, it’s the manner in which they promote it that’s despicable.
Contrary to what one might expect (if TV is supposed to reflect the real world), it isn't the villains who do the most drinking.  The heaviest TV drinkers are well-known stars appearing in regular series where they serve as role models for our children and young people.  TV characters seldom refuse a drink — nor do they express disapproval of someone else’s drinking.  In situation comedies, excessive drinking is often used as a “good natured” way to get more laughs.
It is now understandable why over three quarters of all high school seniors use liquor regularly — with one-half getting drunk at least once a month.  It’s also easy to understand why the White House Drug Abuse Office states that pressure to drink begins as early as the fourth grade.  It might be a fine thing if someone led a crusade to get wine and beer commercials taken from the air as cigarette ads were.
THE MAIN PROMOTERS OF BEER AND WINE
It certainly isn't hard to imagine the producers of a product as the main promoters of that product.  They're in the business of selling the poison they produce; however, it’s the manner in which they promote it that’s despicable.  Let’s take a look at this.
We're told that beer in Australia is vitamin-enriched.  Researchers at the University of Queensland report that chronic vitamin deficiencies in alcoholics could be offset if brewers were to add vitamin B-1 to their products.  
They assert that “A lot of heavy drinkers stand to benefit.”  They also said, “The average person in the northern Territory consume 60 gallons of beer yearly!” 
This will, of course, be yet another advertising plus for the breweries.  They will suddenly be able to trumpet the nutritional benefits of drinking — trying to divert the consumer’s attention from the bondage that comes along with the intake of a little vitamin B.
A California winery has introduced Red Life, a light wine aimed at these soda drinkers who want something “a little stronger.”  The main idea of course, is to get young people — even children — interested in drinking at an early age so they will then graduate to something stronger.
You must remember, the breweries help to manufacture customers — and they have to start with the children to do this.   
I'll give you another example. In the Oklahoma City Times, containing the report of a speech William Coors (then Chairman of the Adolph Coors Company) made to a Convention of security analysts meeting in Denver — he described the advertising of his own company as well as other breweries as “outrageous” for its lack of ethics.
ADVERTISEMENT
He referred especially to the fact that his company pays 250 college students throughout the United States to promote its beer through campus Wet T-Shirt Contests,” “Get Drunk,” and “Chug-a-lugparties.   
He said the other breweries did this so his company followed suit as something “strictly defensive.” Coors said, “We do this — not because we think it is right — but because other brewers do it.  They will steal our lunch — if we don't do it.”  He added, “I personally think it’s outrageous, and everyone in the company thinks it’s outrageous.  One way or the other, the country is going to stop this because our industry doesn't have the ethics to stop themselves.” 
In legal parlance, testimony against self-interest is the most damaging type possible in a court of law.  Coors certainly testified against his own self-interest when he confessed the lack of ethics among the brewery owners and managers.  And by the way, his company sold nearly 15 million barrels of beer in the first nine months of last year — 15 percent increase over the same period for the previous year.  
At the same time Coors was confessing his sins, he also lashed out at do-gooders who were trying to raise the drinking age from 18 to 21 — questioning the motives of such crusades.  He then went on to claim that only five percent of alcohol users are abusers. 
However, what he neglected to add is that the other 95 percent of non abusers are on the way to becoming abusers — in other words, drunks.  They will eventually get there if they drink long enough.  Simply stated, the 5 percent who are now abusers were not guilty of drunkenness when they started drinking!
Yes, the boys who make the alcohol are their own best promoters, and they do so in the most hypocritical, and perverse manner imaginable.
POLITICIANS
Legislators in the state of Wisconsin some time back argued recently whether milk or beer should be the state drink.  Wisconsin is known for both its dairies and breweries (“The Beer That Made Milwaukee Famous”) so the competition was intense.  One State Representative declared his choice was alcohol, because, in his words, “Beer tempers the emotions of our hard-working adults.” 
This Representative should be reminded that beer murders scores of Wisconsin motorists every year.  Alcohol also compels some of those so-called “hard-working adults” to beat their wives and deprive their children.  To my knowledge, milk has never been cited as a cause of broken homes or bruised bodies. 
Preachers — no matter what it costs you — stand up before your congregation and make your position known.
Since marijuana is the number one cash crop in several sections of the United States, maybe it’s only a matter of time before some political opportunists will nominate pot as the official drug for the state. One cannot help but say and think that the Legislators of Wisconsin ought to have better sense.  One doctor stated the other day that the reason stiffer laws are not enacted for drunk driving (or stiffer sentences not imposed) is because too many of the Legislators and Judges are drunks themselves.  This could well be true.
PREACHERS 
Sadly, it is true, from the American pulpits, there is seldom heard a discouraging word — on the subject of alcohol. 
As I write this, I am reminded of a religious periodical that stated (from a teletype news report) that one of the world’s noted Evangelists said there was nothing wrong with an occasional drink.
Talking to reporters, this particular Evangelist said he didn't believe the Bible taught teetotalism. “After all (this Preacher went on to say) Jesus drank wine,” and he pointed to the Biblical account in which Jesus is said to have turned water into wine at a wedding feast.  And as the Evangelist put it, “that wasn't grape juice, as some try to claim.” I wonder if this statement was made to please and excuse the cocktail-drinking friends of the Preacher. 
(We will discuss momentarily the water that Jesus turned to wine.
Not so long ago, one major Missionary Evangelist told me personally that in a great religious conclave (with thousands of Preachers present) he asked all the Preachers (who were Pentecostal incidentally) in the congregation to stand if they did — or would — take a public stand against any and all use of alcohol.  He was startled at the number who would not stand! 
I had a Preacher tell me just today that our institutions are the way they are because our Churches are the way they are — and our Churches are the way they are because our families are the way they are.  I wonder if our families are the way they are because the pulpits are silent. 
I want to make a statement:  any Preacher of the Gospel who won't take a public stand against any and all use of alcohol — and be vocal in that stand — is doing his people, his God, and his country a disservice.  
The position that many Preachers take, that they never mention alcohol because “their people already know it’s wrong,” is a cop out.  Many take this position because they don't want to offend the “sipping Saints” in the congregation.  The Preacher of the Gospel has always been the one to whip the nation into line.  
The Preacher of the Gospel is supposed to address the moral issues.
It may not be popular at times but it is our business.  And if we fail to do it — there’s no one else to do it. 
You could be dead-level sure that the Media aren't going to do it, and you can also be sure that the politicians aren't going to do it.  (Although, in the last couple of years, 2009-2011 a few politicians have stood up and taken a stand on this matter — perhaps a reaction to the dead, dry sermonizing they hear from the pulpits.) 
* Preachers* *  
— no matter what it costs you
— stand up before your congregation and make your position known.  
Warn the young people of the terrible ravages of alcohol.  Make no bones about it, pull no punches, and quibble not.  
And if you don't have strong feelings about seeing death and carnage all around you as a result of America’s worst drug — there’s something wrong with you! 
 • Extracted from October, 2011 The Evangelist  
(This message was derived from the book, “Brother Swaggart, Here Is My Question . . .”.)
Available at the online store {here

 Also see free a Teaching Video on the Subject by Rev Jimmy Swaggart {here}

No comments:

Post a Comment