How should a Christian view alcoholics? What does the Bible say about drunkards?

One of the common sins of mankind. We read of it as early as Noah. Gen. 9:21. Its grave character is shown in the N.T. by the drunkard being classed along with fornicators, thieves, idolaters, etc., and the declaration that no drunkard shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Cor. 5:11; 1 Cor. 6:10.

The assembly is bound to put away a drunkard. If the excommunicated person is truly repentant, the assembly should receive him back. Both the putting out and the receiving back must be the act of the whole assembly and not of a part merely. It is of the utmost importance that none should attempt to interfere with the action of the assembly.

The greatest care, tenderness and wisdom are needed in cases such as you refer to. A man may be “overtaken in a fault” as in Galatians 6. In an unguarded moment a person may be led to take more stimulant than he ought, and perhaps he may seem to be the worse for drink. Should such an one be hastily thrust out of the assembly? Assuredly not. He should be lovingly and tenderly admonished by “the spiritual” who alone know how to do it. He should be carefully looked after, not for the purpose of finding accusation against him, but to “restore” and deliver him thoroughly from the effect of his “fault.”

In short the apostle is showing that brotherly intercourse is restricted to brethren, and so is discipline: to extend either to men of the world is false ground, and would make intercourse with people at large impossible. Christian companionship, on the other hand, demands purity of life on the part of those who enjoy it. If any one called a brother be impure, or covetous, or idolatrous, or abusive, or a drunkard, or rapacious, one is not to mix with him: "with such an one not even to eat." The meaning is, not that we ought not to take the Lord's supper, but not to eat the least meal with him. The corrupt or violent professor of Christ is to be avoided even in an ordinary social act, not merely on the most solemn occasion of christian worship.

Another remark (pp. 4, 5) is too serious as well as characteristic to be passed by. When the Holy Sacrament, says Mr. W., "was profaned by the Corinthian Church, the apostle did not constitute the sound portion of that body a judge of the spiritual character and standing of those who so grossly sinned in regard to it. Mr. Kelly's plan would be that he or others should judge their fellow-worshippers, in order to provide against unfit communicants. The Church's design is to call on men to 'examine themselves' as the most effectual and Scriptural means of securing purity of communion. As to the issue thus raised, we are quite satisfied to be guided by him who said, 'let a man examine himself (and not his neighbour), and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup.' — 1 Cor. 11:28." Now the Lord had already dealt with that sin directly (ver. 30), as an apostle had been given to act yet more promptly for Him in the different case of Ananias and Sapphira. But had not the Holy Ghost, in 1 Cor. 5, charged the body of the saints to judge evildoers hardly so vile and irreverent? Does He invest the saints with that which must result in "an ecclesiastical despotism?" (p. 5.) "I have written unto you not to keep company if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, [is this necessarily scandalous?] or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within? [precisely what is called "Mr. Kelly's plan."] But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person." Here then, beyond controversy, is God's plan. He does constitute the assembly judge of evil apparent in their midst, commanding the refusal of any mark of fellowship, if a brother so called were guilty of drunkenness, etc. Is it not then equally blind and audacious to argue, that drunkenness at the Lord's table was not to be thus judged, because the direction of 1 Cor. 5 is not repeated in 1 Cor. 11? Is that ignorance sinless, which perverts the self-examination here called for, so as to blot out the Church's obligation to judge those within, already enjoined? In Scripture, all is perfect and perfectly arranged. Public, corporate discipline was authoritatively laid down in chap. 5. If the apostle declared this to be God's will there, and faithless men heard not: wherefore would they hear it again, in a portion which formally treats not of discipline but of the Lord's Supper? Will these mis-reasoners dare to say that the assembly ought to deal with the drunkard in general, but not with the aggravated case of Eucharistic drunkenness? Decorous men, if mistaken, from High Church and from Low Church, have hitherto crossed my path: the least logical and the most immoral argument yet offered was reserved for Mr. Whitfield.

The power that drink has over people is astonishing. That was never my temptation, so that I am no judge of the snare, yet I believe that grace can give the victory over that as over every sin, positive deliverance. Clearness of mind as to the truth is not the question here, but real deliverance. Nor is anxiety to get owned again always a good sign, but anxiety with God for deliverance. I say deliverance, for in besetting sins power comes in, and it ceases then to be present to the mind as a temptation: it is the real intervention of God; and this is what a man must look for in such cases. It is well that this person clings to brethren, a good sign, so far, but the true point is concern of conscience, and seeking above all that God should free him from the temptation. When the Holy Ghost works in a man who has fallen, it makes him serious and lowly. It is not the kindliness of man, pleasant as that is, but restoration with God for which we are anxious. The Lord will guide you, dear brother, in this case. Firmness for Christ's glory, the holiness of the Table, and for the good of the man himself accompanied by the grace which thinks of him as a member and sheep of Christ, and charges oneself with the burden of his state, these are what will guide aright in these cases; I am not at all fit for cases of discipline, I have not the firmness called for. As to the manner of acting, the great point is to have the conscience of the brethren with God: "Ye have proved yourselves clear in this matter," says the apostle. When we look at it thus, it alters everything, otherwise cases of discipline are apt to engage the feelings, and make a party for or against. This is what the apostle alludes to when he says, "We are not ignorant of his devices."

The plank might be useful enough for other purposes; but if you trusted it for crossing the gulf, you would find it a fearful mistake. Christ is the bridge across the gulf of destruction, and temperance is man's plank. It is useful in its place, but far too short to lay across the gulf. Trust it, and you are lost. Shall I say that Christ is not able to save to the uttermost? that He who converted the mad persecutor, Paul, cannot convert the poor drunkard until he has half saved himself? I tell thee thou art welcome this moment to Christ. Did He ever send a sinner away? Never. He is the only one who can deliver thee from thy hateful sins.

Now the first question is, was the object of God in the incarnation, and the cross, and the resurrection, to reform drunkards? Was this the glorious work which God proposed to Himself in this marvellous display of His own wisdom and power? Assuredly not: — it was to bring, through this mighty means, man, who had fallen, into a degree of blessedness even higher than that from which he fell — even into fellowship with Himself and His Son, by virtue of the blood 'which cleanseth from all sin, and through the indwelling of the Spirit. It is quite true that the drunkard, or the whoremonger, or the covetous man, who knows the power of this redemption, and is brought to know this glorious work, is thereby delivered from his iniquity, and, through grace supplied, is kept from relaxing into it. This assuredly includes reformation; but reformation is not salvation. And if every drunkard in the world was to put himself under total abstinence, it does not follow that God would be glorified, or that there would be peace to the soul, or that God would rest in complacency upon him: — but if Christ be received these results do follow. And surely it is well nigh approaching to the giving of God's glory to another, to lower the whole work of Christ to the reclaiming of a drunkard or of any other sinner. The angels who sang that song saw a much mightier result — a result which leaves moral attainment far, far behind.

I had a long conversation the other day with a butcher, on the rail to Derby, on the reason why men smoke and drink. This led us to the subject of the bitter misery that sin produces, even in this life; and the various attempts that men make to smother conscience, and drown sorrow. The butcher had just lost his wife, was left with two little children, had passed through some trouble of conscience; but, what was worse, he often took too much drink. In short, we were both agreed that one great reason why men drink is the misery and burden of sin. He owned it was a wretched thing thus to go on from sin to sin; and that solemn word of God sounded heavy in his ears, "The drunkard shall not inherit the kingdom of God." I found him much interested in the things of religion, and wishful to converse upon them. I found he purposed, at some future time, to make a firm resolution to cast off his sins, and become religious. Alas! how many are now in hell who once had the same intention as this butcher! He evidently thought a little striving of his own, at any time, would do all that is required.

But there is another aspect of the case which must not be overlooked. The apostle Paul says, writing to the Galatians, "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ." (Chap. 6:1-2.) It is not too much to say, with these words before us, that there is a direct responsibility resting upon the people of God concerning those who may have been "overtaken in a fault." It is quite true that the exhortation is limited to the "spiritual"; but it has to be recollected that every Christian should be spiritual, although it is undeniable that, unless there be the state indicated by this word, it would be useless to attempt the work of restoration. For an unspiritual man to deal with a fallen brother would be almost a mockery, because, as pointed out, what is needed for such a service is communion with the heart of Christ. On the spiritual, then, there does lie the solemn responsibility of caring for those who may have sinned. In this sense, at least, they are their brethren's keepers. If this were but remembered it would preserve us from all hardness of heart, from all censorious depreciation of those whom the enemy has overcome, and help us in the activity of that love which beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things, of that love which never fails to seek the grace of being used in the backslider's restoration.

Alas! alas! how much of this there is, specially in reference to drink! It is perfectly appalling to think of the consumption of intoxicating drink amongst professing Christians. It is our thorough conviction that the devil has succeeded in ruining the testimony of hundreds, and in causing them to make shipwreck of faith and a good conscience, by the use of stimulants. Thousands ruin their fortunes, ruin their families, ruin their health, ruin their souls through the senseless, vile and cursed desire for stimulants.