Can Wesleyans take a few drinks for the
health of it?
(For
Wesleyans only)
QUESTION: Multiple studies have shown that moderate
alcohol drinking is actually more healthy
and better care of the body than is total
abstinence. Drinking a bit
apparently is better care of the “Temple of the Holy Spirit” than total
abstinence which can be as dangerous as too much alcohol (incredible!) So,
given this new information can a full-member Wesleyan have a few drinks “for
medical purposes?”
ANSWER: Oh boy
this question could drive a person to drink! Nevertheless I’ll give my take on
this:
1. The Discipline lumps together alcoholic beverages, tobacco
and drugs and calls for members to “abstain” from them.
(4) To demonstrate
a positive social witness by abstaining from all forms of gambling and by
abstaining from using or trafficking (production, sale or purchase) in any
substances destructive to their physical, mental and spiritual health, such as alcoholic beverages, tobacco and drugs (other
than proper medical purposes of drugs); and by refraining from
membership in secret societies and lodges which are oath bound, believing that
the quasi-religious nature of such organizations divides the Christian's
loyalty, their secret nature contravenes the Christian's open witness and the
secret nature of their oaths is repugnant to the Christian conscience. (The Covenant Membership Commitments in 265(4))
2. The
“proper medical purposes” exemption here applies only to drugs, not to
alcohol. I’d say the “original
intent” of the statement was to allow for prescription drugs but not
prescription alcohol. But the originators are not that far back in time—this is
not a 100 year old stance—nor even a 50 year old one. However somebody might see a tiny loophole in
the fact that this is addressing “any substances destructive…” and now that
alcohol (moderate use) is considered helpful health wise and not destructive it
no longer applies? I don’t know. It is like the US constitution—are you a “strict constructionist”—that is, a thing means
what the original writers meant it to mean?
If so then this meant to address alcohol, and it assumed all or any alcohol
was destructive. If, however you are
more of a loose constructionist you might argue that the principle behind the
statement (destructiveness) now actually looses the very thing it meant to bind
then. But, in either case it is not for
you to decide—you personally aren’t the supreme court of this matter.
3. You may
be thinking of older statements in the Discipline where (if
I recall right—I don’t have my Disciplines
collection handy) there may have been some sort of alcohol exemption for
“mechanical or medicinal use.”
Sidelight: As for
the mechanical use statement, P.W. Thomas once told
me that one of the founders of the Wesleyan Methodist Church held a patent on
an alcohol stove and insisted that “mechanical use” be clearly stated and that
carried on for a long time—but I don’t know if that’s true…someone like Bob
Black would have to confirm that before I’d believe it for sure).
Someone ought to look up in older disciplines and find if this
exemption for “medicinal use” of alcohol appeared and when it was tightened up
with the above statement.
Sidelight: It
would be an interesting thing to ask if a member comes in under an older
Discipline if they are grandfathered in and still
live under that one?
I hear that when the Wesleyan Methodists took a stance against tobacco
they grandfathered in all smoking members to that
date—and I’ve actually met at least one pastor in north Carolina who had a
member of his church who openly smoked and bragged that he was under the old
law and allowed to both smoke and raise tobacco.)
4. However,
since Alcohol is widely considered a “drug” I suppose one might argue that the
“drug” exemption could apply to alcohol. But you’d have to get a judicial ruling to do
that legally which would open the loophole to everybody. You might argue that moderate use of alcohol
is a “medicinal use of a drug” So I suppose you might try to pour a bit of
alcohol through the “proper medical purposes” funnel if you got such an
interpretation of church law.
5. The
General Superintendents interpret church law—the Board of General
Superintendents have that power 1915(24).
Often we think of the BGS as the “executive branch” of church
government—the branch that “does stuff.”
But actually they also serve this judicial function—to interpret church
law. They are not the ultimate
interpreters—but serve as a “district court” of sorts—they can interpret church
law and answer this question if it comes to them properly. I suppose you could
ask for an interpretation of this to see if grandma can take her glass of wine
at bedtime without violating her membership commitments.
6. But you
personally can’t ask for a ruling from the BGS. The only individual
who can ask for a ruling is a General Officer—any other requests must come from
a list of groups (e.g. your DBA could ask for it
though). (Sidelight: one wonders if an officer over missions or
evangelism could ask for this ruling—would it be considered germane to their
work?)
7. Any BGS
ruling could subsequently be appealed to the church’s “supreme court.” That’s what that little-known but extremely
important (twice every century, at least) group called the “General Board of Appeal” is—they are the
supreme court of the church. If the BGS
rules on an interpretation of church law, within 60 days it can be appealed to
this group whose decision is final unless overturned by a 2/3 vote of a future
General Conference. What power! (Sidelight:
perhaps this is why retired GSs are sometimes put
forth as candidates for this board?)
Almost always the General Board of Review is older and more conservative
than sitting GSs so an appeal usually would be made
by conservatives not folk trying to loosen up things.
8. I know
few people who would make this effort.
Few people know church law enough to use this channel. Few districts care enough either (Central NY
might, however) to work through this judicial process. So don’t get your hopes
up that there will be a ruling any time soon on church law allowing for you to
take a nightcap “in order to live longer.”
9.
Different generations face this differently. While one can’t generalize
totally I can make some generalizations that are “often true.” The Baby Boomers, raised through the
rebellious 1960’s simply ignore church rules they no longer support rather than
trying to change them. They say, ‘the rules will catch up later.” And they’ve lived through such changes. I recall when the church banned wedding
rings. Sharon and I (like most of my
generation) slipped ours on at the door after the ceremony. Eventually the law caught up to the
practice. Boomers can recite a list of
rules that eventually melted down after they simply defied them for a
decade. At general conference when the
rules finally caught up to the practice the arguments were, “These are some of
my best people.” So boomers still are melting down rules by defiance and seem
to have little guilt over it. On this issue they often practice a “Don’t
ask-Don’t tell” membership policy. They
don’t ask about alcohol and they hope nobody will tell them about it.. However I must
note that younger folk writhe in anguish over this “lack of integrity” on a clearly written rules.
They value their word more, their honor.
So younger folk agonize over the rules they committed to while their
parents simply defied them and waited for them to catch up. Boomers think younger folk are
over-sensitive. Maybe, but they also
could simply have more integrity.
10. Here is
my prophecy on alcohol use.
Before I move to Brooksville there will be a softening on this alcohol
stance. It is most likely to come by
upgrading the rights of “community members.”
You can already be a Wesleyan (community) member and use alcohol. Over time “community members” will gain more
voting rights. They already can vote on
a new building, budget and most every other issue except the pastor, board
members and letting in new members. In
the future these “voting rights” will expand to include the pastor and they’ll
eventually be able to serve on [local] boards and committees. Perhaps they’ll rename the category so that
community members are really joining the local
church, not the denomination and they won’t be able to be delegates to
above-the-local-level conferences and boards (since they have not “joined the
denomination”). Both categories of
membership will develop in a parallel way (perhaps with some churches having
75% community members?) until some day (this will be after I’m in Brooksville) they’ll simply merge the two categories
again into one category called “member.” Poof—the “upper” level will have
disappeared and the legislation that merges the two categories will then establish
new “leadership standards” that are easier to change as culture and convictions
change and they’ll apply some of what was once a membership/entry standard to
leadership. But just because I predict
this doesn’t mean I’ll start ordering those cute little drinks with umbrellas
in them when I go out to eat. I still
prefer total abstinence……
I’ll drink to that!
Keith Drury
9/7/05 www.TuesdayColumn.com
Click here to comment or
read other comments on this article