A Christian is only on certain ground as he bases every decision upon the teachings, principles, or life of his Master, Jesus Christ.

      For many years now the Church has been sadly astray in her attitude toward the "Drink evil," because she listens to, and is moulded by tradition and convention rather than by Jesus Christ, her Lord.

      The man who drinks is generally treated akin to a leper--he is condemned as a wanton--no patient hearing comes his way--the attitude of the average onlooker is "serve him right."

      The Church combines to protest strongly against drink in every intoxicating form and she speaks through an alliance of bodies.

      Jesus was outspoken in denouncing evil and He expects us to speak likewise--better moral and prayerful support of the alliance leaders would enable them to speak thus on behalf of a Church which was really trying to mould society.

      Let us face this drink question squarely as it mounts its ugly head in a more vigorous manner year by year.

What is Temperance?

      Temperance means moderation, self-control, the mastery of desires and passions. Temperance does not imply abstinence, rather temperance calls for discipline.

      For example:

      Man takes rest--the exercise of self-discipline means he avoids laziness.

      Man eats food--as he exercises temperance he avoids gluttony.

      Man enjoys relaxation--temperate sport means he avoids becoming "sport mad."

      This self-discipline points to an inner control, a spiritual quality, whereas abstinence is purely a physical control in most issues.

      Now, when we apply this definition to the Drink issue, we must be consistent. That is, when a man drinks wine, to be temperate he must exercise discipline else he will become drunk.

      Total abstinence does not enter the temperance picture at all.

      I am sure that we, as a people, stand solidly on the platform of total abstinence as being in the best interests of both the individual and society, but an important question we must answer is whether our position is based on either the practices or the principles of Jesus Christ, or has tradition a hold which blinds us to reality.

      It is necessary to investigate the question.

Was Jesus a temperance man or a total abstainer?

      It is evident that Jesus Christ drank wine having an alcoholic content.

      Now let us search the New Testament with a view to establishing the actual practice of Jesus.

      Acts 2-13: Others mocked saying, "They are filled with new wine." The inference is that the opponents of the Apostles suggested an overindulgence in new wine had produced an intoxicated babbling. The Greek word used here is "gleucos." Peter's rebuttal, "These men are not drunk, it's only the third hour," does not claim total abstinence. This event took place about 7 months after their grape harvest, and there is no way of preserving grape juice for more than a day or two in their heat.

      It is claimed therefore that "gleucos" is the word used for intoxicating wine--and quite justifiably.

      The only other word used in the New Testament translated as wine is "oinos." We turn hopefully expecting to find that this word refers to grape juice, because this word is used to describe the wine which Christ produced at the marriage feast at Cana.

      As we read Romans 14:12 we hear Paul's message that it is right not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything to cause your brother to stumble.

      In short, taking this wine in excess produced drunkenness--and the word used is "oinos."

      In Ephesians 5:18 we are challenged not to get drunk with wine (oinos)--the suggestion calls for temperance rather than total abstinence.

      Paul advises Timothy in his first letter 5:23 to take a little wine to correct an internal disorder. "oinos" is used again--we must not blind ourselves to the great use of alcohol in medicine today.

      Titus 2.3 implies that slavery to drink would not be in the best interests of the aged woman, that is, temperance in the use of wine (oinos) is advised.

      In the light of the above, We must face the miracle at Cana with candour.

      John 2:10 clearly states that after men have drunken freely of "oinos" their perception is not crystal clear and so the steward is able to introduce the inferior wine. The time was just prior to the Passover, months after the grape harvest, that is, months after any grape juice was available.

      The steward praised what Jesus produced as being the best to be procured--he would know the difference between wine and grape juice!

      Some find great difficulty in accepting the idea that Jesus would produce over 100 gallons of wine. We must recognise that our outlook is coloured by our Australian wine conditions. Palestinian wines are not fortified, that is, their alcoholic content is not artificially increased to prevent their reverting to sour vinegar. Ours is. The only drunks seen by our soldiers in Palestine during the last war were the "Jungle Juice" addicts. The men who accepted the local wine (not fortified by the addition of boot polish, boiled raisins, etc.) imbibed without becoming intoxicated. As with other aspects of life, farming, sociology, etc. their wine has not changed from the time of Jesus Christ.

      It must be remembered that the celebrations attendant to a wedding were protracted. 100 gallons would not be excessive among 100-200 guests over a period of 2-5 days. (I can consume a gallon of tea during summer in a day!) It is most probable too that the wine was the only fluid available to be drunk.

      Did Jesus then drink wine having an intoxicating element?

      His own words as recorded in Luke 7:33, 34 clearly suggest that John was condemned because he drank no wine whilst He, Christ, was condemned because He drank wine. Had this wine not been alcoholic then there would have been no ground for their charge against Him of being a drunkard.

      Secondly, the Jews drank wine at the Passover meal--months after the grape harvest. After celebrating his last Passover meal, our Lord took the cup which was on the table and divided it among them,

      We cannot refute this position--Jesus Christ drank intoxicating liquor. But please qualify that statement on every occasion with a reference to the unfortified wine of Palestine and also the absolute discipline and self-control exercised on every occasion by our Lord.

His practice or His principles to govern us?

      The question arises whether we should be guided by His practice here in Australia.

      Emphatically NO! Jesus lived as a Jew. He observed the law, He accepted their traditions and views, He kept their feasts--we are not expected to follow His practices.

      The Holy Spirit guides us through a reasoning faith to the way we must conduct our life.

      The old Testament record condemns intemperance, but it does not command total abstinence--however, the principles presented point in that direction.

      Total abstinence is only required of the Priests who serve in the Sanctuary (Leviticus 10:9) and of those who assume the Nazarite vow (Numbers 6:3).

      Daniel and his associates observed a voluntary abstention from intoxicating liquor.

      Nowhere in the New Testament are we commanded to abstain.

      How different though is the liquor position in Australia as compared with Palestine in the day of our Lord. Wine produced by natural fermentation soon reverts to sour vinegar--our wines are fortified to preserve their taste, colour and quality for years. This raising of the alcoholic content increases the degree of intoxication.

      Our present hotels assume the role of "swill bars" in which the accepted practice of "shouting" increases the consumption of wine to an unnatural degree.

      The subtle voice behind the "pressure" advertising of today increases the desire to taste and try.

      Also our social approach to drink is totally different from their approach wherein they used wine to quench their thirst, to heal the body or to observe feasts.

      Keeping these points before us, it is evident that we must seek the will of Christ as we make our decision in respect to the drink problem. He lived under an entirely different set of conditions from ours and obviously his practices are no guide to us in our day.

What principles concern our approach to liquor?

      1. In Matthew 16:24, 25 Jesus lays down the principle of self-denial to attain salvation. In short, anything which would rob us of the ability to live victoriously must be cast out. Indulgence in the wine of today robs us of our poise, our purse, our possessions. When men reach the third hour in their drinking today, they are certainly speaking with tongues! This principle of self-denial calls for nothing less than total abstinence.

      2. Mark tells us in 9:42 Christ stressed the principle of example. Our example could influence another to the degree that he would sin and be lost to the Kingdom. As we are found indulging in intoxicants we reveal that we

      (a) Indulge selfishly.

      (b) Are indifferent to the wrecked lives and homes in our midst.

      (c) Have shared in the filth and bad language always associated with bars.

      (d) Are unashamed to make a spectacle of ourselves whilst "under the influence."

      This principle of example calls for total abstinence.

      3. Paul pursues this principle in Romans 14:13-21. He stresses that whatever we do must never hold the possibility of becoming a stumbling block to our brother. Total abstinence is the only sure attitude to ensure that we do not assist a fall.

      4. In 1 Corinthians 8:8-13 we see Paul summing up his argument re the principle of example in this definite manner.

      "Therefore if food is a cause of my brother falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall."

      Substitute drink for food!

      The principles presented by Jesus Christ and His Church call for nothing less than total abstinence on the part of one who would live life at its best, on who would be a true disciple.

An ambulance or a fence?

      It has been pointed out that much less ambulance work would be required at the bottom of a cliff if a fence were erected at the top.

      Many concerned with the drink evil are putting all their efforts into building a fence at the top of the cliff. Some criticise those who see the other need and thus are acting as ambulance men. Surely there is a great field for both--the situation calls for both groups, viz.,

      1. Those who work along the lines of prevention.

      2. Those who strive to restore the wrecks.

      Any man who has suffered a crash but has been rescued would definitely lend a mighty hand to build a fence. It's such a huge cliff--there are so many hurtling over--it requires such an enormous fence.

      (a) A review of our "fencing" technique.

      "Prevention is better than cure" is so true. Christian groups have linked in an Alliance to restrict the improper distribution of liquor in our society. Their voice is raised against any suggested extension of trading hours. Campaigns are energetically waged against any effort to increase the licensing of properties to distribute liquor. An effort is before us to lower the alcoholic content of our wines. Much has been accomplished having resulted in a "braking" effect upon liquor consumption.

      Our servants are hampered because of a lack of full support by the churches. Those who do support recognise the inadequacy of the financial backing. A deeper undermining effect comes from the attitude of those groups and individuals both in the Church who feel it's not harmful to take an occasional "nip."

      Educating our young people by means of Band of Hope societies, literature and films is also a positive approach towards the erection of our fence.

      (b) Now for a glance at the Ambulance squad.

      I am afraid our Ambulances are few and far between. I see little team work being shown by our Ambulance officers, rather I see disjointed effort by a few individuals.

      Various church bodies provide homes for the aged drinkers who are destitute at the retiring age. Kindly welfare groups assist with the domiciling of neglected children.

      Individuals take a personal interest in the victim of drink and in very practical ways help those who "have not."

      Alcoholics Anonymous is a group which does a grand work among the wrecks. Members of A. A. have been rescued by the ambulance section at some earlier period--their habits of insobriety have been arrested. These people attend receiving homes and by their testimony and interest help their fallen brethren. They arrange for new avenues of employment, they seek out homes for the new family life which will be the result of sobriety, they assist in the repaying of debts.

      Prison welfare officers contribute their part as they endeavour to give hope to those who have been incarcerated in our goals because of overindulgence.

Can an ordinary Christian join in this task?

      It's not a case of "can," it's a must.

      It is most commendable to support our Alliance, it is worthy to support welfare appeals. It shows interest to read all we can about A. A., and the fine parents see that their children avail themselves of every opportunity to receive education about abstinence.

      But we need to fight this evil personally.

      I suggest for your consideration the following:--

      1. Every Christian should become acquainted with A. A. and learn how it works. Most Christians have some contact with an alcoholic. Surely we could accept the responsibility to acquaint our Preacher with information about his or her progress through a "bout." Then when our broken brother comes out of his "bender" fully conscious of his need of help, our Preacher is able to step in with help and suggestions for care and treatment. Just your simple information could redeem a wreck.

      2. We all have some friends and associates who, through an unwise selection of friends, imbibe too freely at times. We who claim kinship with the Friend of man are often not as friendly as those who are of the world. An interest in our friend's garden, his children, an invitation to our men's group, our calling to take him along, our invitation to enter our home--surely these would help to win him to live life as we experience it in Christ.

      3. Our Church properties and auxiliaries' equipment are regularly requiring repairs or additions. Many drinkers are such because they are unable to regiment their activities.

      It's our privilege to contribute what we can to assist any such project--it's our responsibility to enlist the help of the "unfortunates" that they might appreciate they can be worthwhile after all. We are helping as we invite his talent and accept his contribution as we work together.

      4. We must present to the world the calm and confident peace which characterised Christ. This alone would challenge others to sobriety. Our life must be one of self-denial to the degree that though we might consider we are permitted to drink as a Christian, yet we must never do so in case one who is weaker should fall.

      5. As we see that our best is demanded, we must present one individual consistently before our Father. God may not choose to use us as His channel for the recovery of our fallen brother, but He will use the avenue we provide by our prayer. Our prayers must rise day by day in this manner. It's of little use our praying for a man when he is "under the influence" if we are not prepared to pray for him while he is sober. I believe we must open the door before we can behold His miracles.

      6. We must not reject appeals for help because "A" is a drunkard. Your purchase of clothes or of meals may be the means of touching off the process of redemption. To offer money, which is easier really, is but to encourage further indulgence.

      7. A man in the gutter may provide our opportunity to play the Priest, the Levite or the Good Samaritan--dare we pass by? I know that the finest education one can obtain in this matter is to take our "gutter" brother home to his house. Thus we have the opportunity

to view his circumstances, to appreciate the vicious circle in which he is involved, to recognise his dilemma. This experience provides one with an understanding of all the forces which combine to drive men "over the cliff." As a result Christ challenges us to adopt a more positive and active approach to this cancer in our society.

      But for the grace of God, perhaps you and I could be victims at the foot of the gorge--and wouldn't we yell for the ambulance.

J. MANALLACK
who entered the College of the Bible from Grate street, Adelaide, S. A., graduated in 1948. After several student ministries, he then accepted a call to the church at Berri-Winkie, S. A., where he has been serving for nine years.