Column for Aug 21, 2008

Leave your self righteousness at home and Oktoberfest alone

I know that this is not going to be a popular subject with many readers, but I have never been one to shy away from tough topics. I am going to deal with personal opinions and "sacred cows", so to speak.

Months ago, I was pleased to see the Selma Town Council give their vote of support for Edelweiss Cafe here in town to put on an annual Oktoberfest. Edelweiss is a unique restaurant with a unique cultural flavor and flair. Having been to Germany and experienced some of the culture, I fully appreciate what Steve Reed has done with his restaurant. Later, the town council decided to wait for a full public hearing on the changing of an ordinance that would permit the sale of alcohol on town property, such as on a closed off Raiford Street. That delay almost cost the town the festival this year, since there was a lot of money and planning on the line in order to pull off the event. Fortunately, the town council decided to pass an ordinance that would allow the sale of beer on the street. The ordinance has tight restrictions, and the proposed event had the same sorts of controls over the distribution and consumption of alcohol.

When I first moved to Johnston County, we were effectively a "dry county", with sumptuary laws that disallowed sales of liquor by the drink. It was fine for the county itself to sell liquor apparently, just not bars to serve it. That was a huge double standard. What that meant was the one could only find a limited number of restaurants in the area. Johnston County had plenty of barbeque and fast food joints, but nothing like Outback, Texas Steakhouse, Applebee's, or even Sweetwater's when they were in business. I lamented the lack of restaurant selection for a long time. I moved to Johnston County after living in North Hills in Raleigh for years, and was quite used to upper quality dining establishments.

I remember that I worked for the local radio station in town when the subject of liquor by the drink was up for discussion. A local pastor who ran the radio station argued against the passing of the law on reasons of temperance and a feared rise of DWI and resulting fatalities from automobile collisions. Of course sumptuary laws (prohibition) in the United States did not work out so well after the passing of the 18th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Well meaning but misguided Christians (primarily Protestant) and temperance organizations lobbied hard for their version of holiness to be forced upon everyone in the entire nation. That lasted only thirteen years before the 18th Amendment was repealed, but not before thousands of people died from the black market forces and organized crime created by the sudden illegality of alcohol manufacturing, distribution, and consumption. Al Capone made millions of dollars from his illegal distilling operations. Similar laws failed miserably in Canada, Russia, Hungary, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Ironically, Muslim nations often impose harsh penalties for violation of prohibition laws even today. And yet many Christian ministers are critical of Islam (as am I) for their intolerance to any paradigm other than their own.

The same sort of false holiness was pitched to the Selma Town Council in the form of opposition to the ordinance change to allow such alcohol sales "for the public good" by local clergy. I find it interesting that the very people who preach about the first miracle of Jesus, turning water into wine, are the same people who want to limit or prevent anyone from access to the same beverage or others like it. I have had the theological discussion with ministers on the "evils" of alcohol consumption. However, the very nature of the concept of temperance is not abstinence, but the avoidance of excess. I have seen ministers who argued tooth and nail against alcohol preach a fiery sermon then go eat like cultured hogs. That not only is hypocritical, but is gluttony, and the antithesis of temperance. The Apostle Paul warned us to "be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess", not to abstain from wine all together. The Corinthians were admonished for getting drunk during communion, not against imbibing said beverage. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty, not control of others in the name of the public good. If it was not a sin for two thousand years of church history to consume alcohol, except in those circles in which busy bodies wished to foist their personal convictions upon others. It certainly is not for the reason of properly interpreted scripture. I am not much on mass consumption of alcohol, but I usually do choose the wine over the grape juice each Sunday during communion just to stand by two thousand years of church tradition.

I have long heard it said that when it comes to dealing with the faith, we should handle things thusly: in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. This is one of those areas in which pet doctrines can be muscled upon others in the name of holiness or public good, since it is easy to fall for the concept. Nobody who is highly moral believes that drunkenness is a righteous thing. Furthermore, I have seen some build a case from the Bible, however unfounded or inapplicable the verses turned out to be, especially when placed in their proper contextual setting. The consumption of alcohol in and of itself is not sinful, nor is it righteous to attempt to ban others from partaking therein. There are some explicit and obvious truths that are issues of sin and appropriate public policy, such as prohibiting the slaughter of innocent life. Prohibiting someone from having a beer in downtown Selma at a well regulated event is not one of those obvious truths. If to you imbibing alcohol is a sin, then to you it is sin, according to the Bible. That does not mean that your personal conviction is good public policy or holy, much less applicable to others.