See: “Why I Am No Longer a Christian Fundamentalist: Part 1”

See: Part 2: “Non-Fundamental Fundamentalism and Premillennial Dispensationalism”

* * * * * *

Abstinence from alcohol is a peculiar characteristic of Christian fundamentalism, but it is hardly a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith. Nowhere does the Bible mandate or ever even suggest teetotalism, and the call for abstinence on any Biblical grounds was unknown to the church before the last two centuries.

Abstention from alcohol may be a fine personal choice. But to manufacture a doctrine, no matter how well-intended, and proclaim it as God’s Word, is the error of the Pharisees. Jesus condemned the Pharisees, charging that “in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men” (Matt. 15:9). Did God somehow overlook the virtue of teetotalism? Was God insufficiently informed about the dangers of alcohol when He inspired the prophets to warn against drunkenness, but stopped short of prohibition? Is God glad for the help fundamentalists have given Him by improving upon His Word?

Jesus also indicted the Pharisees for something else fundamentalists fall into easily: focusing on outer behavior rather than inner holiness. In the verses immediately following the one quoted above, Jesus said, “Hear and understand. It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man” (Matt. 15:10-11). But fundamentalists stubbornly refuse to hear or understand that simple spiritual truth.

Teetotalism, “T-total” abstinence from alcoholic beverages, is a perfect example of “non-fundamental fundamentalism,” which I described in the second article of this series. Non-fundamental fundamentalists elevate non-essential teachings to equal importance with the fundamental doctrines of the faith. It does not require much contemplation to recognize that if the goal of Christian fundamentalism is to identify and defend the essential doctrines of Christianity, then non-fundamental fundamentalism actually works against that goal.

THE TEMPERANCE MOVEMENT
The Temperance Movement’s campaign to prohibit alcohol in the U.S. dates back to one century before the emergence of the Fundamentalist Movement, but the two movements ultimately became entwined. The Temperance Movement began in the U.S. in the late 1700s. As the name suggests, the original goal was to promote moderation and curb drunkenness. However, during the 1800s, temperance advocates shifted their aim from moderation to the complete prohibition of alcohol.

The movement finally achieved its goal in 1919 with the ratification of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, which outlawed the manufacture or sale of “intoxicating” beverages. However, Prohibition was such a disaster that it was repealed after just thirteen years. During the Roaring Twenties, Prohibition led to a proliferation of speakeasys, bootleggers, organized crime and government corruption.

Prohibition was the culmination of more than a century of earnest campaigning by many groups, including the Order of Good Templars, the Christian Women’s Temperance Union, the Anti-Saloon League, and the National Prohibition Party. Although religion was only one of many motivations behind the Temperance Movement, many Protestant ministers and churches were sympathetic to the cause, and some became active proponents. One prohibitionist who was a devout Methodist even developed a way to pasteurize grape juice so church-goers could partake of the Lord’s Supper without touching alcohol (See “How Grape Juice Was Invented to Make the Lord’s Super ‘Holier’”).

FUNDAMENTALISTS JOIN THE MOVEMENT
Christian fundamentalism arose in the late 1800s and early 1900s to protect the fundamental doctrines of Christianity against liberal thinking such as higher criticism, evolution, and the social gospel. However, fundamentalists quickly expanded their vision beyond Christian doctrine to the preservation of traditional values in a society that was changing rapidly. From 1900 to 1930, the rise of phonographs, the radio, and motion pictures introduced middle America to a broad range of cultural influences. It was the era of nickelodeons, jazz music and dancing, abstract art, and flapper girls. An unprecedented wave of European immigrants to the U.S. brought further change to the cultural mix. Fundamentalists believed American culture was going downhill fast, and saw the prohibition of alcohol as one way to slow the decline.

Some of the most visible representatives of fundamentalism were also the most vocal about the evils of alcohol. The most famous example is Billy Sunday, the professional baseball player turned fire-and-brimstone preacher. Sunday celebrated the ratification of Prohibition at one of his revival meetings by staging a funeral for “John Barleycorn.” He preached:

The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile and children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent.

Unfortunately, Prohibition failed to usher in the millennial kingdom as Sunday and other fundamentalist preachers had promised.

(Sunday’s famous “Booze” sermon in support of Prohibition can be found here. It is worth noting that this fundamentalist sermon contains not a single Bible reference and only two references to Christ, in the introduction and in the close. Audio recordings of Sunday’s preaching, mostly on the topic of Prohibition, can be found here.)

ANOTHER KIND OF SOCIAL GOSPEL
The fundamentalists’ campaign for prohibition was surprisingly similar to the very social gospel the fundamentalists denounced. Social gospel advocates downplayed the importance of Christ’s death on the cross, proclaiming that salvation could be achieved as a society by following Christ’s example of love and peace. The liberal theology of the social gospel was one of the main forces the Fundamentalist Movement arose to combat. Fundamentalists rightly upheld the Biblical teaching that salvation is possible only through Christ crucified, and that change occurs only through new birth in Christ.

Nevertheless, fundamentalists somehow became convinced that a government ban on alcohol would make the world a better place. Thus, prohibition was based on the notion that lasting societal change could be achieved through political action rather than personal conversion, which is social gospel thinking. Then and now, fundamentalists share the liberals’ belief in a social gospel, with the difference being that fundamentalists want the government to enforce morality in personal behavior, while liberals want the government to address broader social issues such as poverty and racism.

Prohibition was such a disaster that there has never been another viable campaign in the U.S. to legislate alcohol away. Nevertheless, to this day, complete abstinence from alcohol remains an important value for Christian fundamentalists. Members of conservative churches and citizens of middle American towns dominated by “old-fashioned conservative values” remain hesitant to order a glass of wine with their meal or walk into a liquor store to purchase a bottle of alcohol, from fear a fellow church member will see them straying from the fundamental way. It is remarkable that teetotalism continues to have such a grip, even though the very idea of teetotalism is a relatively recent religious idea with no Biblical basis.

WHAT CALVIN, LUTHER, LEWIS AND PAUL SAY
For all of church history before the mid-1700s, alcohol was considered a gift from God, provided for the very purpose to “make man’s heart glad” (Psalm 104:15). Centuries before the Temperance Movement and Christian fundamentalism, John Calvin warned against prohibition. In his commentary on Psalm 104, Calvin cautioned against the sin of drunkenness, but also warned against fear of drunkenness becoming “a pretext for a new cult based upon abstinence.”

Similarly, Martin Luther wrote: “Do you suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused? Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women? The sun, the moon, and the stars have been worshipped. Shall we then pluck them out of the sky?”

More recently, C.S Lewis (Letters of C.S. Lewis, 16 March 1955) wrote:

I…strongly object to the tyrannic and unscriptural insolence of anything that calls itself a Church and makes teetotalism a condition of membership. Apart from the more serious objection (that our Lord himself turned water into wine and made wine the medium of the only rite He imposed on all His followers)…Don’t they realize that Christianity arose in the Mediterranean world where, then as now, wine was as much part of the normal diet as bread?

The unbiblical and pharisaical connection between fundamentalism and prohibition is one reason I am not a Christian fundamentalist. Although any believer is free to abstain if he chooses, and those who are tempted to drunkenness should most certainly abstain, for the typical Christian teetotalism is no more pleasing to God than moderation.

Nobody has ever stated it more clearly than the Apostle Paul did, long before the American Fundamentalist Movement came along. In his letter to the Colossians Paul wrote:

No one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink…If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, ‘Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!’ (which all refer to things destined to perish with use) — in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence. (Colossians 2:16, 20-23)

* * * * * *
In Part 4, I will discuss the connection between American Fundamentalism and racism.

* * * * * *
See: “Why I Am No Longer a Christian Fundamentalist: Part 1”

See: Part 2: “Non-Fundamental Fundamentalism and Premillennial Dispensationalism”