ARTICLES
Q TALKS
DISCOVER Q
EVENTS
All Q Events
Q Nashville 2014
Q Session | Innovate
Q Cast
RESOURCES
Books
Studies
Bible
Church Leaders
Speaking
PARTICIPATE
Praxis Accelerator
Host Conversations
Church
Business
Education
Social Sector
Arts + Entertainment
Science + Tech
Government
Media
Cities
Gospel
Restorers
Tweet
Arts + Entertainment
PBS 'Prohibition' and the Complexity of Sin
by
Bethany Keeley-Jonker
The new Ken Burns series
“Prohibition”
aired recently on PBS. (If you missed it, it’s streaming on a number of services and PBS’
website
.) I was excited to watch it, especially because I had done some reading on the history of the 1920s as part of my dissertation research. I annoyed my husband by offering factoids before the documentary got to them, but the series also made me think, in both a historical and contemporary context, about the complexity of sin.
The most surprising thing to me was this statement from historian
Barry Hankins
: “If the goal was to significantly reduce drinking and reduce the influence of the saloon in American culture, then Prohibition was a success.” Before my research, I had been working with received knowledge that the prohibition law was a total failure. It didn’t prevent people from drinking and it fed organized crime. While both of those claims are true – and the crime problem might be enough to still consider Prohibition a net bad – what I did not know is that Prohibition, along with the temperance movement that led to its institution, did change the culture of alcohol in the United States for the better.
The first episode of “Prohibition” ably illustrates the serious drinking problem American had in the late 19th century. Men spent all their money at the saloon and came home not only with no money to support their family, but also drunk and violent. The evils of drink that Prohibitionists decried were real.
I think when we talk about the failure of Prohibition, we are acknowledging the failure of an all-or-nothing approach. The PBS series said that access to alcohol (especially for those underage) was reduced when Prohibition was repealed and legal regulation put in place. An incremental approach, it turns out, did more to help the problem of national alcoholism than trying to eradicate it completely.
In “
Uncommon Decency
,” Richard Mouw argues that Christian engagement in public life must be modest rather than an all-or-nothing approach. We should neither expect our efforts to bring God’s peace immediately, nor give up in despair. “Our calling is not to bring the kingdom of God in its fullness,” Mouw writes, “it is to witness to the power and presence of that kingdom in ways that are made available to us.”
Prohibition may have been based, in part, on an erroneous belief that it is possible to rid society entirely of a sin. My understanding of total depravity leads me to believe that this is an unrealistic goal. However, that does not mean we should give up trying to create systems that help people make better, more righteous choices, or that we should stop pursuing righteousness corporately in addition to doing it individually.
The Gospel of Grace means our failures are inevitable and also forgiven, but also that we should continue to strive toward righteousness and pursue justice for others. I think Prohibition was an attempt in both of these areas: to help excessive drinkers to pursue righteousness and to protect the victims of their violence and indigence. Perhaps the Prohibitionists just tried to do work that only Christ can do: bring new life to one that was dead to sin.
As a follower of Jesus, what role do you see alcohol playing in our culture? How should we respond?
How can you apply the "modest" approach, as opposed to the "all-or-nothing approach" to how you engage culture?
Editor's Note: This piece was originally posted on
Think Christian
. The image is from LIFE Magazine and was found
here
.
Tweet
Comments
TMcGill
I wouldn't say I think Prohibition was wise (and in some ways rather odd coming largely out of a religion whose founder _told_ them to drink wine). But I'd actually go even further in putting the conventional wisdom under scrutiny and call into question the common assumption that it "fed organized crime...and the crime problem might be enough to still consider Prohibition a net bad." I would venture to suggest that this could actually be an altogether mistaken meta-narrative of Prohibition.
Not because organized crime didn't coalesce around illegal alcohol, because it certainly did. Rather, I'd propose that organized crime is spectacular and catches the public imagination, and that for this reason, we remember it and fail to notice the measurable fact that _unorganized_ crime surrounding alcohol, and the destruction it causes, are far greater than the size of the organized crime brought about by its prohibition. Alcohol is a factor in a huge proportion of crimes today, and that's before you even count traffic injuries and fatalities caused by alcohol, which far exceed those ever caused by gangsters. You stand a much greater chance of dying today from a drunk driver, or being assaulted at a college frat party, than you ever did of getting in the way of Al Capone or someone like him.
What I'm pointing out is that the crime, personal risk, and loss of life from alcohol today are quite possibly greater than the crime, personal risk, and loss of life from Prohibition then. That doesn't necessary mean Prohibition was a good idea. But it is something we really should consider when we mentally imagine Prohibition's successes and failures, and when we try to apply to other areas what we think we've learned from that experience. A drunk driving death doesn't make the front page and get remembered for the rest of the century like the Valentine's Day Massacre does-- but the drunk driving death happens ten to eleven thousand times a year.
And certainly alcohol-related crimes happened during Prohibition, too, because many people continued to drink. But not everyone did, nor did we all have easy access to as much as we want, like we do today. It's possible that the imagined contrast-- high crime with Prohibition, low crime without-- is simply mistaken. The crime was just distributed differently. Greater concentration of evil in fewer people doing bigger misdeeds, vs. spreading the evil around the whole population at a lower level. Which is worse is not as obvious as we usually assume.
Chris
This was a great post. Very informative. Great job.
Tommie
Ye, we as Christians do tend to focus on "all or Nothing" when it comes to sin. Christ, said in John 3:17 " For God sent not his son into the world to CONDEMN the world: but that the world through him might be saved.
We should not be seeking to do what only he can do.
MELTONE
Looking back, it is impossible to determine exactly how many folks stopped drinking due to prohibition. Folks would not be so open with their drinking and I don't believe we have good stats to prove anything. The point of view of the historian looking at the historical scene many years away affects the conclusion. I would guess that some folks stopped because the drink was not as readily available. Perhaps some good was served while the law produced an even greater problem. Again, I don't believe you can sustain the conclusion that fewer folks in fact drank after prohibition with reliable stats.
What we can say is that the creativity of folks who wish to exploit the desires, tastes and obsessions of others for their own personal gain are clearly evident before and after prohibition. Today we find that many that abuse their bodies and in turn, their families, with a host of illegal as well as legal drugs. Sin of this sort seems more popular than ever.
Fletcher
I studied this as well. I believe that the was a more insidious problem that was raised and we still are living with. For the first time, otherwise law abiding citizens thought it was ok to break the law.
I believe that we are still living with this...from speeding to fudging on your taxes. I just think the only way to change our world is one heart at a time (actually, we just need to live like Jesus). Live what you believe.
Caroline Nichols
I really appreciate this perspective - all or nothing can really only be accomplished by Christ. He is the only one capable of ridding us (and society as a result) of sin.
Mary Moser
I'll soon be 85 yo. I was a child in Portsmouth, VA during Prohibition. I knew plenty of people who smirked at the law, who made home brew and hid it, e.g., under the treads of stairways. I knew a cop who discovered a cache of homebrew in my relatives home. He was offered a bottle which he cordially drank. I heard those of the dating age giggle about their evenings in speak-easies. There were scarcely any cars then, and so no, people didn't get arrested for driving under the influence. They did stagger down the streets, litter the gutters with whiskey bottles. --A sure way to make money then was to collect whiskey bottles from the gutters and sell them to bootleggers, who had their stills in the woods.
Today I am a professional counselor in Farmville, VA specializing in treating alcoholics. I'm not against drinking. I myself enjoy beer and wine. But it would have been wonderful then and would be so now if Scripture were obeyed, you know the part that tells us that whether we eat or drink, or whatever we do we should do for the glory of God.
Corey
Great post. Jesus introduces the New Covenant with wine, so alcohol obviously has no intrinsic evil. As a youth pastor, I take the "modest" approach with the youth; that when they're 21 they'll have the opportunity to choose. The "all or nothing" - or "law" approach seems to have the effect of increasing alcohol abuse.
Comments are now closed
ALSO IN ARTS + ENTERTAINMENT
Introducing Q Sessions
by Q Ideas
Artist Spotlight: Young Oceans on Advent
by Q Ideas
Those Who Can Fix Anything: Restoring Through City Planning
by Aaron Fortner