Perhaps no law has been sneered at in the United States as the Prohibition Amendment added to the American Constitution after World War I. It was heralded as one of the great liberating factors of history, and identified as permanent, presumably never to be repealed, to assure better life for the masses, especially for individual families. I remember well when it was repealed a little more than a decade later. Repeal came during the early part of the Great Depression. President Roosevelt said that if it meant return to the saloon conduct of the earlier years of the nation, we would regret the repeal. In easy flow of American ingenuity, saloon keepers simply changed the name of their establishments from saloons to bars. At this writing, one of the centers for police involvement relates to bars in and near to the establishments, and often related to murder, family abuses, drug dealing and lowering of community standards. A town near my own was studded with bars a few years ago, and has during the last few years reduced their number so to spruce up the town and its reputation. It was a social decision. Bars are simply dressed-up saloons.
During 2013, a major story in religious and secular sources was triggered by the decision of the Board and Administration of Moody Bible Institute in Chicago to remove the prohibition of the use of alcoholic beverages from its rules on employee and student conduct. Quietly, other institutions have been removing similar rules. The best argument for the removal is that it appears to be legalistic, so to be as violating the freedom of individuals to adjudicate their own conduct and beliefs. The discussion related to the matter has not appeared in satisfactory detail in the materials available in the early analysis of policies related to excess (drunkenness) and means (human consumption). For a family or community to design its policy to control some negative factor, without denying the ideal (individual responsibility) is a right that may be taken by the community. Those individuals disliking the policy will, in their right and freedom, not relate to the community or institution. The matter of methodology is addressed in detail by Jeremiah in the 35th chapter of his prophecy in his dealings with the Rechabites. The main lesson of the passage is to note that a family has been faithful to the convictions of their father (human founder), but Israel has not shown the same virtue to God (spiritual founder). However, the blessing attending the faithfulness for divine purpose, evasion of alcohol, even if not in the individual responsibility to God, is blest of God in its service to the members of the family who accept the prohibition for benefit. The affirmation, in the right direction, is better than any interpretation of violation of individual responsibility. This is dealt with in another Page in this series. The Rechabites, in their way, were witnesses not so much to individual freedom from the ruin of drunkenness. Jeremiah learns and then teaches that this may be one way to control temptation, by creating taboos to which the community agrees as their guiding conduct and that without finding fault with some other means, perhaps parenting, for evading unsatisfactory conditions. Taboos are not laws.
This factor of variance is far more common pattern in society than we realize. God is the author of government, as noted in Romans, chapter 13. Whether that government is democratic, autocratic, confederate, judges, royalty, or whatever, the powers of government are to be followed for the good of the people. God is somewhat flexible to accommodate social procedures. Governments are to make their rules for the good of the social order. But, they make contradictory laws, muting the meaning God has for power centers in consistent treatment for the good of mankind. At this writing the conservative view of the use of alcoholic beverages is limited to prohibition on the property of the institution ruling on the matter. Perhaps a similar guideline will emerge for other drugs. In theory differences are clear: in actions there are contradictions. The rule appears to be attractive, but not effective for cultural change. Some historians argue that national failure is built into the various orders. We seem unable to accept the limitations God permits that fall into majority and minority practices. We fail in tolerances because of reluctance to work through variety factors. Groups seeking approved ideals freely make their guidelines. Some variety is permitted in common grace. God’s moderations are found in Bible boundaries for essentials. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020