One Toke Over the Line

By Douglas Wilson

Introduction
For multiple reasons, certain ethical standards which used to be taken for granted in the Christian world are no longer. Recent years have seen a terrible erosion in our ability to distinguish good from evil; in certain frightening ways, the ethical competence of the Christian world is frankly disintegrating.

In some places, the standards have simply collapsed. This is nothing other than old-fashioned backsliding, and it is common in modern evangelical circles. But in the midst of this general ethical slide, another phenomenon has appeared, one which is still comparatively rare. In the Reformed world, some have taken the banner of Christian liberty and have begun to wave it in favor of certain practices that would once have been rejected out of hand. One prime example of this is the idea (now current with some) that smoking marijuana in moderation is part of Christian liberty and no more to be rejected than enjoying a glass of wine at dinner.

The purpose of this booklet is to attack this gross distortion of Christian liberty, and to attack it both root and branch. But as we begin our discussion, we must start where all discussions of convoluted subjects should start, which is to say, with definitions. We will therefore begin by defining the phrase "Christian liberty," then proceed to a definition of marijuana use, and then show how the Bible treats the two as utterly inconsistent.

Christian Liberty
A classic statement of the meaning of Christian liberty is found in Chapter XX of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Because the "Christian liberty defense" of marijuana smoking is coming from what might be called the flotsam and jetsam of the Reformed world, I am beginning with the historic Reformed statement of the doctrine. At first glance, this might seem like an odd place to begin a discussion of smoking dope, but it actually makes a good deal of sense. Christian liberty is a fine-sounding phrase and rolls easily off the tongue. But our fathers in the faith were not as enamored of slogans as we are and have dealt thoroughly with the deeper ramifications of all this. We should consider their words carefully and learn from them when we ask, "What should we mean, exactly, by Christian liberty?" The first paragraph of this chapter in the Confession establishes the doctrinal foundation of all that follows.

The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the Gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law (Tit. 2:14; 1 Thess. 1:10; Gal. 3:13); and, in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin (Gal. 1:4; Col. 1:13; Acts 26:18; Rom. 6:14); from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation (Rom. 8:28; Ps. 119:71; 1 Cor. 15:54-57; Rom. 8:1); as also, in their free access to God (Rom. 5:1-2), and their yielding obedience unto Him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind (Rom. 8:14-15; 1 John 4:18). All which were common also to believers under the law (Gal. 3:9, 14). But, under the new testament, the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected (Gal. 4:1-3, 6-7; 5:1; Acts 15:10-11); and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace (Heb. 4:14, 16; Heb. 10:19-22), and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of (John 7:38-39; 2 Cor. 3:13, 17-18).

First, it is important for us to see that this section follows right after the teaching on the law of God. The law of God sets the boundaries within which we may exercise our liberty. Having set this context, the Confession goes on to define what our liberty is-a very important thing to do. If we simply assume that we know what we mean by liberty, hidden definitions will always plague our discussion.

Liberty means, first, freedom from guilt, God's judgment, and the condemnation of the moral law. It also means we are delivered from the wickedness of the world, the hatred of Satan, and the dominion of sin. We are also freed from the consequences of such things-afflictions, fear of death, the dominion of death, and Hell.

We are also freed to certain things-we are free to approach God, and free to obey Him from love and willingness, not from fear. In these respects, we are like our brothers in the time of the Old Testament.

But our liberty is greater than theirs. We are freed from the ceremonial requirements of the law, and we have a more abundant display of God's grace upon us than they did. Note in this that "liberty" always implies a standard, and this standard always brings with it an antithesis. This means that he who says "free from" must also assert a specified "free to."

A man cannot turn away from something without simultaneously turning to something. Liberty always necessitates, therefore, an appeal to a source of law.

The second paragraph builds on this foundation:

God alone is Lord of the conscience (James 4:12; Rom. 14:4), and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, in matters of faith, or worship (Acts 4:19; 5:29; 1 Cor. 7:23; Matt. 23:8-10; 2 Cor. 1:24; Matt. 15:9). So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience (Col. 2:20, 22-23; Gal. 1:10; 2:4-5; 5:1): and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also (Rom. 10:17; 14:23; Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11; John 4:22; Hos. 5:11; Rev. 13:12, 16-17; Jer. 8:9).

Because God is our Lord, He alone is Lord of the conscience. This means that, in matters of faith and worship, men cannot command us in His name when He has not spoken. Obedience to men is certainly permissible, but we are prohibited from obeying men as though they had the right to bind the conscience in the same way that God does. We may drive on the right side the road, for example, but we may not do so as a matter of conscience. We can easily acknowledge that godly Christians in the UK drive on the left side. These sorts of things are societal house rules and do not bind the conscience. The conscience is bound to respect the existing authorities, as the Bible teaches, but there is nothing essentially moral about the right side of the road. Mere men, on their own authority, have no authority whatever to bind the conscience.

With regard to the topic under discussion, this means that if God has not prohibited the use of marijuana, then we may not issue any moral prohibitions of it either. But if He has condemned it, then we must also condemn it.

We must always compare the varying legislations of men with the Word of God and may not simply assume that they must have a good biblical reason for prohibiting what they do. We cannot require of the people of God an "implicit faith" that says of course marijuana use is ungodly, even though no biblical case is ever made against it. Our authority to declare against any practice is limited to the teaching of the Bible. With this as our standard, we are freed from men, and freed to God.

Now this leads us to the third paragraph of the Confession, which directly addresses the problem we are confronting. When Christians try to maintain that Christian liberty includes the freedom to smoke dope, we must show them that they are neglecting a study of their own heart motives.

They who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our life (Gal. 5:13; 1 Pet. 2:16; 2 Pet. 2:19; John 8:34; Luke 1:74-75).

The end or purpose of Christian liberty is the pursuit of holiness. Those who wave the banner of Christian liberty so that they might do whatever they want have not understood the doctrine at all. The point is not to drink or smoke or dance according to our own whims, in the light of our own wisdom, but to do whatever we do before the Lord, with the increase of joy and holiness obvious to all. Our guide on how this is to be done is the Bible, and not our pet evangelical traditions. And this is why we may drink wine to the glory of God, and we cannot do the same with marijuana. But it is not enough simply to make this assertion; we have to show from the Bible that to smoke marijuana is to practice sin and cherish lust.

But before we do this, the next section of the Confession is relevant, involving the issue of authority. Not surprisingly, false claims to liberty frequently collide with authority.

And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God (Matt. 12:25; 1 Pet. 2:13-14, 16; Rom. 13:1-8; Heb. 13:17). And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account (Rom. 1:32; 1 Cor. 5:1, 5, 11, 13; 2 John 10-11; 2 Thess. 3:14; 1 Tim. 6:3-5; Tit. 1:10-11, 13; 3:10; Matt 18:15-17; 1 Tim. 1:19-20; Rev. 2:2, 14-15, 20; Rev. 3:9), and proceeded against, by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the civil magistrate (Deut 13:6-12; Rom. 13:3-4; 2 John 10-11; Ezra 7:23, 25-28; Rev. 17:12, 16-17; Neh. 13:15, 17, 21-22, 25, 30; 2 Ki. 23:5-6, 9, 20-21; 2 Chron. 34:33; 15;12-13, 16; Dan. 3:29; 1 Tim. 2:2; Isa. 49:23; Zech. 13:2-3).

There are limits (obviously) to civil and ecclesiastical authority, but those limits are not established by the agitated desires of private spirits, particularly by those of ignorant nineteen-year-old boys. With regard to civil disobedience, an individual may withstand the authorities only if he has warrant from the Word of God to do so, and does so in a way that is an honor to the gospel. If he does not, then he may not.

Some portions of this paragraph in the Confession go beyond the boundaries of our discussion, but it is important to note that the issue of lawful civil authority is pertinent. When unbelieving civil authorities legislate against the mere use of wine, for example, they are doing so contrary to the teaching of the Bible. If the magistrate prohibits the use of wine at a sabbath dinner of believers, he is clearly overreaching himself. This does not mean that he must be disregarded, that civil disobedience is required, but it does mean that the magistrate has set himself against the clear teaching of the Bible. That segment of the Christian church which agrees with this prohibitionism is a very provincial portion of the church-American Christianity over the last century or so.

But when the magistrate outlaws the use of marijuana, he is not assaulting Scripture in the same way. This does not mean that the use of marijuana necessarily ought to be criminal, but merely notes the fact that it is criminal and that those Christians who want to disregard this law not only have no Scripture with them, they also have Scripture against them. Peter writes, "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake. . ." (1 Pet. 2:13). Let me make this point particularly clear. I am arguing that marijuana use is clearly sinful, but I am not debating at this point whether it ought to be criminal. That is a separate debate for another time. Nevertheless, whether we debate it or not, it is in fact criminal. This means that those who want to use marijuana anyway are resisting the law from their own sinful position. They therefore do not occupy the same moral high ground that Christ would have occupied had the wedding at Cana taken place during Prohibition and been raided by ATF agents.

This is why we must recognize the distinction between sins and crimes. Americans are naturally meddlesome and have a deep prohibitionist streak. If something is disapproved of, i.e. thought to be sinful, the next step taken is the assertion that "there oughta be a law." But whether it is right or not, this "all or nothing" mentality is also shared by many of those who think that smoking dope ought not to be a crime. The facile assumption is made by some who think that since it should not be a crime, then it must not be a sin either. This is too easy.

For those who take the Bible seriously, we should be able to see right away that not all sins should be crimes. But we should also be able to see plainly that many "non-crimes" are clearly sinful. For example, covetousness is clearly a sin, a violation of the tenth commandment. God says not to covet anything that belongs to our neighbor, but the magistrate is not competent to deal with covetousness.

So I am not arguing here one way or the other with regard to the criminalization of marijuana use. We can at least say the magistrate should punish that criminal behavior which frequently accompanies such drug use, and the debate over whether the use of marijuana per se should be against civil law can be left for another time. But even if the civil government legalized it, which it might, sanctions should still remain. Because it is so clearly wrong, the two other governments established by God should provide sanctions for any such drug use. The family and the church can (and should) discipline for non-criminal sinful behavior

Marijuana Use
If I want to argue that marijuana use is sinful, then it is important to note what I mean by "marijuana use." The proposition being argued here is that it is sinful to ingest marijuana to any extent that alters the chemistry of the body and causes a physiological response of any magnitude. I am not arguing that there is any sin inherent in the marijuana plant, and I am told that it can be used in the making of fine ropes. I am not saying that it would be a sin to hold marijuana in the hand, or to sprinkle it over the top of one's head. I am not saying that it would be a sin to ingest marijuana in minuscule amounts, amounts that have no effect whatever.

Such distinctions are necessary because the sinful mind is legalistic and always wants to push boundaries. People take dope for the effect, and I am arguing that it is a sin to seek this effect. It is a sin to seek the strong forms of it-getting loaded-and it is a sin to seek the mild forms of it-getting a pleasant, euphoric buzz. If it has done its work as a drug, then that work has been a sinful one.

In what follows, the observations are made on the basis of objective knowledge of marijuana use, and not on the basis of self-reports from drug users who want to recommend the drug. We know a great deal about marijuana-it is a destroyer-and the hard data we have cannot be waved off as establishment hysteria over reefer madness.

Because marijuana is a toxic drug (1), getting to the point of physiological response happens rapidly. Unlike wine, for example, marijuana has an immediate effect, within minutes (2). Two sips of wine tastes good. Two hits from a joint and the process of intoxication has begun (3). The active ingredient in marijuana is THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) (4). Over recent decades, THC potency has regularly increased. In the sixties, ordinary marijuana averaged one-half of one percent THC. Today the average is three percent, with some forms (sinsemilla) getting to an average of 7.5 percent (5).

The half-life of THC in the body is three to seven days (6). Contrast this with the half-life of alcohol, which is about an hour. Marijuana smokers frequently think that they do not have a problem with the drug because "they only smoke on weekends." But by the next weekend, up to half the THC is still in the body, and is slowly being released by fatty tissues into the bloodstream (7). Even after the high has worn off, THC continues to impair the body's ability to function. For a chronic user, it can take months before the THC is out of the system (8), and even then, permanent effects on the ability to think can be measured and observed (9).

THC has an effect on the nerve cells in the brain where memories are formed (10). This is not a datum seen only in the laboratory. Those who are acquainted with drug users recognize at once the problem of the space cadet (11). For women, THC might adversely affect their ova (12), and has a probable effect on their future children (13). Marijuana users frequently lose their motivation, their concern over their appearance, and their grasp of ethical standards (14).

Obviously, heavy users will be more heavily affected, but to the extent that a user is affected at all, he is harmfully affected.

Soberminded
Now that we have set the stage, what does the Bible teach?

Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation. (1 Thess. 5:6-8)

The word translated sober here is nepho, and it means to "be self-possessed under all circumstances." (15) Being sober is utterly inconsistent with every form of mental and spiritual drunkenness. Someone who is affected to any extent by marijuana is not sober in the sense that Paul uses that word.

Peter says the same thing, using the same word.

Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. (1 Pet. 1:13)

It is very interesting that Peter couples this requirement to be sober with the requirement to "gird up the loins of the mind." This figure of speech is striking; girding up the loins is gathering up the robes, preparing for action. The Christian mind is to be in training, preparing to think clearly and with godly precision. A lack of sobriety, a lack of nephos, to any extent, is completely inconsistent with this. Two drags on a joint and nephos is impaired (16). The clear-mindedness which is required is necessary for prayer. "But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer" (1 Pet. 4:7).

A related word is nephalios and is required of Christian elders as they set an example for the congregation. This word means to be "in control of one's thought processes" and to be "sober-minded, to be well composed in mind." (17)

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach. (1 Tim. 3:2)

We know from the immediate context that the required sobriety is consistent with the drinking of wine in moderation. Paul says in the next verse that the elder is not to be given (or "addicted") to wine. The use of wine in moderation is consistent with nephos. But nothing in what we know of marijuana makes it consistent with this biblical requirement. To smoke marijuana to get any level of euphoria from it is clearly a sin.

Be Not Drunk With Wine
Reasoning by analogy, we can also see that drug use is excluded because it is designed to bring about the one state - brain fog - which is condemned as a lawless application of alcohol. "And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit . . ." (Eph. 5:18).

The objection is often made that this excludes getting drunk with wine and does not exclude getting a buzz from marijuana. This is a good illustration of the legalistic, hairsplitting mindset of those who are attached to their sin. We too often think that legalism, the drawing of unscriptural boundaries, is the province of the overly righteous. But legalism is a sinful frame of mind, and it does not disappear even in the midst of licentious behavior. Sinners love to catch at words-it all depends on what is is-and we need to realize what is going on when they do this. When someone says that Paul prohibits "drunkenness" and not "getting high," we have an example of this kind of catching at words. Paul also says not to get drunk with wine. Does that mean that gin is all right? Beer? Rubbing alcohol?

If a man gets drunk with beer regularly, and the church disciplines him, may they use Eph. 5:18 as part of their basis for doing so? The only reasonable answer is of course. Paul says not to get drunk with wine because it is one example of dissipation. Anyone who thinks that wine is the only route to dissipation does not get around much. The word for dissipation here is asotia, referring to a life that is prodigal or dissolute (18). The word for drunk is methusko, which refers to intoxication (19). If a man smokes dope until he is face down on the carpet, he is disobeying Eph. 5:18. How he got loaded is not the point. If he got there with gin, beer, wine, or dope, the problem is the same. As we have already seen, marijuana has an intoxicating effect almost immediately. This intoxicated state is unlawful, however induced.

But suppose this is granted, but a further question is asked. What about the fellow who is not wiped out? He smokes marijuana but remains (at least in his own mind) fully functional. He grants that "drunkenness" is always wrong, but denies that marijuana has to produce "drunkenness." Why cannot cannabis provide an equivalent experience to wine gladdening the heart of man? We have to look at this argument carefully. We have seen that drunkenness is flatly prohibited by Scripture, but we have to recognize that other uses of alcohol are approved and encouraged throughout the Bible.
In order to do this, we must back up. According to the Bible, alcohol has at least five lawful scriptural uses. Let's look at each, and see if there is a parallel to marijuana at that point. The last one we will consider is the "gladden the heart" argument.

The first use is sacramental. "And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom" (Matt. 26:27-29). From Genesis to Revelation, we have no scriptural warrant for the use of drugs in worship. While this is a feature of numerous unbelieving sects and cults, it has no part of biblical worship. God does require wine in the Lord's Supper, but He does not require any use of marijuana sacramentally.

Wine also has a medicinal value. "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities" (1 Tim. 5:23). Here we have to say that marijuana could be scripturally lawful if it were being used in a genuinely medicinal way. With this said, at the same time we have to say that the current political push to allow for the medicinal use of marijuana does have a hidden agenda behind it-the issue is not medicine, but rather the legalization and normalization of marijuana use. The current science indicates that the proposed medical value of marijuana is greatly overrated. It is being pushed as a medicine for non medicinal reasons.

Then there is the aesthetic dimension. "And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now" (John 2:10). One wine might be selected because it would go well with the beef, and another chosen because it complemented the pasta. Marijuana goes well with (recalling Cheech and Chong) oreos and mustard. We have no scriptural reference to drug use as an aesthetic gift, but we do have a scriptural acknowledgment of aesthetic standards with wine. "No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better" (Luke 5:39).

We also may drink in order to quench our thirst. "After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar [cheap wine], and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost" (John 19:28-30). We see here that wine satisfies a God-given desire, that of thirst. We have no scriptural reason to think that marijuana satisfies any such natural desire. On contrary, marijuana creates a number of additional desires.

And last, wine has a wonderful celebratory function. "He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; and wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart" (Ps. 104:15). When a Thanksgiving table is set, when the glazed rolls are brown, when the turkey has reached perfection, and the crystal glasses are filled with wonderful wines, there the hearts of believers are filled with gladness. In contrast, when a room is filled with sweet, sticky smoke, the hearts of those present are filled with nothing but self-deception. True celebration is a discipline, accompanied with hard work, planning, training, and the fruition of joy. The use of marijuana is a celebratory slide downward, indulged in by the lazy and self-indulgent.
But doesn't this passage say that God also gives herbs "for the service of man?" Yes, but drugs are not at all in view. The word is eseb, and refers to herbs, green plants, and grass. It is talking about plants that work on behalf of man, not plants that cause a man's mind to become blurry. The lesson here is to eat your vegetables and salads.

Of all these, the only possible lawful use for marijuana is the medicinal (20), and the use to which everyone puts marijuana is the one use which is denied to alcohol. In short, if someone was affected by alcohol the way they are affected within minutes of taking just a few hits, I would insist they have had too much to drink. Why? Because their mind has been noticeably blunted; they are no longer sober-minded; they have started visibly down the road of dissipation.

Because of the lack of an explicit statement on the ethics of marijuana use, we must resort to Biblical principles. And this requires judgment calls. In just a few pages, we will consider the biblical necessity of such judgment calls.

Pharmakeia
One word in the New Testament related to drug use is pharmakeia. It is the word which in Galatians 5:20 is rendered as sorcery or witchcraft. In the first century, the use of "altered state of consciousness" drugs was clearly connected in various ways to the occult. In the ancient usage, pharmakeia is usually used to describe some occult practice, related to drug use-potions, drugs, and so forth (21). This means that the translation of sorcery in Gal. 5:20 is probably a good one. But even today, the connection between drug use and occult practices is not entirely severed.

But even when there is no occultism, this does not make the prohibition of pharmakeia irrelevant to the modern "secular" drug user. Ancient drug use was far more "religious" than modern drug use. But so was ancient prostitution. When Paul commands the Corinthians to stay away from prostitutes, contextually the problem he was attacking was prostitution mixed with idolatry. In other words, men who worshiped at the Temple of Aphrodite would do so by having sex with the prostitutes there. This mixture of sin categories does not keep us from seeing the pastoral relevance of 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 to a modern secular use of prostitutes. In other words, a modern man could not defend his night with a hooker by saying that she was not a priestess. In the same way, pharmakeia encompasses more than one sin. One of them is the use of drugs.

We may also reason in the other direction. If we were to describe modern pot smoking to an ancient Greek speaker, and we asked him what word would be used to describe this practice (with no occultism in sight), he would still answer pharmakeia. Thayers lists as his first definition as "the use or the administering of drugs." The second definition is poisoning, and the third witchcraft (22). Liddell and Scott do much the same (23). First, it is the use of "drugs, potions, spells." The second definition is poisoning or witchcraft. Vine says the word "primarily signified the use of medicine, drugs, spells; then, poisoning; then, sorcery."

With these things in mind, the warning that Paul gives after he has listed the works of the flesh should be sobering to those who want to smoke dope as an expression of their Christian liberty. He says that "they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (v. 21). An awful lot rides on this.

It Followeth No Way
Discussions over marijuana frequently find themselves diverted into interesting but irrelevant sidepaths. One of the characteristics of sophomoric insight is the ability to make superficial connections where no genuine comparison exists. The purpose of this short section is simply to show why it isn't a longer one.

The first superficial comparison has already been addressed-the moderate drinking of wine, or other forms of alcohol, cannot be compared to the immediate intoxicating effects of marijuana. At the same time, it must be said that with some very potent alcohol, the possibility of comparison does exist. Rubbing alcohol would be ingested only for the sake of immediate effect and so a comparison could be made. But in the vast majority of cases, the two activities are not comparable.

Another superficial comparison can be made to the smoking of tobacco. Tobacco is a room-smell-altering substance, but it is not a mind-altering substance. There are very good reasons not to smoke cigarettes, but for the most part they are not the same reasons for avoiding marijuana. But because tobacco is on the fast track to being declared "a drug" by our federal masters, it is important for us to think biblically here as well.

Some pietists have maintained that all tobacco use is necessarily sinful. A mindless response to this is that no tobacco use is sinful. But this is clearly false. Tobacco can be sinful for various reasons, even though it is not automatically sinful. If a man smokes a pipe once a month, I would be hard-pressed to show from the Bible how he was sinning. But if he is addicted to a pack of Camels a day, then obvious issues of self-control come to mind. And the same thing goes for Maxwell House (24).

But marijuana is a mind-altering drug; it affects perception and ability to think. With "drugs" like caffeine and nicotine, and anything else we might think of, the issue is not the loss of reason, because these are not mind-altering agents. But they do affect the body, and so the issue can be the creation of bodily dependencies, and a consequent loss of joy. The body is hard enough to subdue (Rom. 6:12) without giving it bunch of extra dependencies. "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods, but God will destroy both it and them" (1 Cor. 6:12-13). "I will not be brought," Paul says, "under the power of any."

So the use of tobacco can easily be a moral issue. It just isn't this moral issue.

Reason of Use
I said earlier in this booklet that this question is one which requires a judgment call. The Bible nowhere says, "Thou shalt not smoke a joint." But I have argued here that the practice is biblically prohibited. So who makes the call? And by what standard?

We have to begin by distinguish moral legislations and moral applications. The earlier section on Christian liberty showed that mere men do not have the authority to declare, on their own authority, anything to be good or evil. So how can we address anything that the Bible does not mention by name? The answer is that the Bible explicitly requires us to make moral judgment calls.

For example, the Bible says that a bishop has to be "of good behavior" (1 Tim. 3:2). He has to have a good reputation with outsiders (v. 7). He must be blameless (v. 2). Now the Bible nowhere tells us whether the gentleman being considered in the next elder election meets these qualifications or not. The Bible describes the qualifications, and expects us to get to know that man, and then make a judgment call. We have the same kind of situation with the use of marijuana. The Bible says that sobriety is required of all Christians. We get to know about this substance called marijuana (not mentioned by name in the Bible), and yet we want to know if the use of it is consistent with this standard.

So who should make all such judgment calls?

But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Heb. 5:14)

Those who are mature, those who are of full age, those who have been around the block a few times, have had the opportunity for a lot of ethical practice. When they have taken advantage of this opportunity, their senses are exercised to be able to discern good from evil. Now clearly, this does not mean that mature Christians are able to tell that murder is wrong, and nobody else knows this. All men have a certain ethical sense planted in them by God, even though unbelievers suppress a good deal of what God has given to them. And all Christians have the law of God written on their hearts. Every believer has an immediate knowledge of certain ethical distinctions. In fact, this is one of the evidences of true conversion. A new believer instinctively shrinks away from practices which used to be normal for him. "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him" (1 John 3:6).

But there is another category of ethical judgment calls which can only be made by the experienced and mature, those who have given themselves over to the exercise of distinguishing good from evil. This experience is essential when we come to the areas of ethical application when judgment calls are necessary. When we need judgment calls, we should look to those who are experienced in the Word of God, and experienced in this fallen world.

And this relates directly to one of the central problems evident in the advocacy of Christian liberty in marijuana use. The problem, to put it bluntly, is one of youthful arrogance. In my experience, the shortsightedness and pride that has accompanied this agenda is frankly breathtaking. If this were to be the next great advance in Christian liberty, which it isn't, it will not be discovered by a pack of nineteen-year-old boys with green hair. Being adrift on the ocean of life in a dingy does not turn someone into Magellen.

The Threat to True Christian Liberty
We have been working very diligently to build a culture in which genuine Christian liberty is permitted to prosper and flourish. In this, we are regularly resisted by those Christians who are frightened by such liberty, and who consistently predict that it will inevitably deteriorate into thoughtless excess. It is appalling to be engaged in this fight, and then look behind at our own troops, only to find them industriously validating the adversaries' point.

The Reformed faith offers a great deal to our troubled and modern evangelical church, with all its pietistic scruples. But they do not want to hear us, sometimes because we drink or smoke. They tell us that this so-called "Christian liberty" will be abused. Sooner or later they say, someone will want to get high in the name of Christian liberty, and then where will we be? And then, some of the young and arrogant among the Reformed swallow this reductio and go on to illustrate their point for them. I have seen great damage done to the cause of true liberty by those who want to have some room for their sin in the name of that liberty. But the Bible speaks to this as well.

For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. (Gal. 5:13)

What is liberty for? It is given so that we might serve one another in love. It is not given as an occasion for the flesh. I have never encountered an instance of a marijuana user who was serving others in love. They are always after their own tinglies.

For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. (1 Pet. 2:15-16)

When someone demands their own liberties in a self-seeking way, you can rest assured that someone else is going to be harmed. We are called to live as free; the use of true Christian liberty threatens no one. But when people clutch at sin in the name of liberty, the thing is a cloak for malice.

While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. (2 Pet. 2:19)

False teachers promise liberty, but are slaves of corruption. This corruption does not look like corruption to everyone. If it did, no one would be fooled by it, no one would be taken in. Marijuana smokers are dissolute and corrupt, and the fact that they don't think so should mean very little to us. They smoke their first joint, and the sky doesn't fall in. They don't have a hangover the next day, and they assume they have been lied to their whole lives. No, they are being lied to. After they have smoked ten joints, they still don't see the problem. They cannot diagnose their own leprosy of the mind, and will not be able to see it until big pieces start falling off. Their frequent inability to follow the plain teaching of Scripture at this point is evidence of this spiritual corruption.

Christian liberty is given so that we might learn to be holy. "That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life" (Luke 1:74-75). Those who desire holiness have to walk away from marijuana for good.

 

Endnotes

(1) Julius Axelrod, who won the 1970 Nobel Prize for physiology, confirmed at the 1974 Senate hearing on the subject that THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, is unquestionably a toxic substance. Return

(2) "THC is rapidly and extensively metabolized in humans. Different methods of ingesting cannabis give rise to different patterns of absorption, metabolism and excretion of THC. Upon inhalation, THC is absorbed within minutes from the lungs into the bloodstream. Absorption of THC is much slower after oral administration, entering the bloodstream within 1-3 hours and delaying the onset of the psychoactive effects."
"Peak blood levels of THC are reached very rapidly, usually within 10 minutes of smoking and before the joint is fully smoked, and decline rapidly to about 5-10% of their initial level within the first hour. . . . This initial rapid decline reflects the rapid conversion of THC to its metabolites, as well as the distribution of THC to lipid rich tissues, including the brain." Solowij, Nadia, Cannabis and Cognitive Functioning (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge Press, 1998).Return

(3) See above. Return

(4) National Institute of Drug Abuse, INFOFAX, "Marijuana." See also Solowij, op. cit., p. 4.Return

(5) National Institute of Drug Abuse, "Marijuana: Facts Parents Need to Know," Revised, November 1998. "The concentration of THC in a batch of marijuana contianing mostly leaves and stems may range from o.5% to 8% (Fehr & Kalant, 1983a), while the 'sinsemilla' variety with 'heads' may result in concentrations from 7% to 14% (Jones, 1987)." Solowij, op. cit., p. 18.Return

(6) For experienced or daily users, the half-life of THC is 3-5 days, while for inexperienced users it is a longer. Johansson, E., et al., (1988). "Prolonged apparent half-life of Delta-1 Tetrahydrocannabinol in plasma of chronic marijuana users," in Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, 40, 374-5. Return

(7) "Given the slow clearance, repeated administration of cannabis results in the accumulation of THC and its metabolites in the body, and because of its slow release from fatty tissues into the bloodstream, THC and its metabolites may be detectable in blood for several days, and traces may persist for several weeks. The release of stored THC has been suggested as an explanation of 'flashback experiences.'" Solowij, op. cit., p. 24. Return

(8) "The evidence from the research reviewed and reported here suggests that the use of cannabis three times over week or more frequently results in a state of chronic intoxication, probably due to the accumulation of cannabinoids." Ibid., p. 245. Return

(9) "If the use of cannabis is prolonged, for more than 3 years for example, the user may incur gradual long-term changes in brain function." The next paragraph continues, "If the user continues to use cannabis for many years and then decides to cut down or cease using, it is likely that their mental proficiency will improve somewhat, and probably noticeably so, but perhaps not entirely." Ibid., p. 246. See the second half of this book for research and documentation of the long-term effects of cannabis use. Return

(10) National Institute of Drug Abuse, "Marijuana: Facts Parents Need to Know," Revised, November 1998. Return

(11) The cognitive changes of one dose of marijuana include: impaired concentration; impaired short-term memory; a loosening of associations; a distorted sense of time; impaired performance in completing simple, mundane tasks; impaired ability to think abstractly and do simple math; etc. Solowij, op. cit., pp. 29-38. See also the source listed in Note #10, above.Return

(12) Personal interview with Paul W. Leithart, M.D., on October 19, 1999. Dr. Leithart has been active in substance abuse rehabilitation for twenty-five years.Return

(13) This is certainly true of pregnant and nursing mothers. As for pregnant mothers, "In the 1970's, (Dr. Harold) Rosenkrantz and coworkers examined about 1,000 pregnant animals before and after treatment with marijuana smoke or THC and observed more than 10,000 embryos or fetuses. . . . At least twice as many fetal deaths occurred in pregnant animals exposed to marijuana smoke as in control (unexposed) animals, regardless of species." Jones, H. C., and Paul Lovinger. The Marijuana Question (New York, NY: Dodd, Mead, & Company), p. 65. Regarding nursing mothers, the same authors relate the following: "Two nursing mothers who smoked marijuana daily in pipes took samples of their milk to a North Carolina laboratory to be analyzed for THC. The milk did contain THC, more of it in the heavier smoking woman. Later she provided a sample of her infant's feces, which was found to contain THC plus a relative abundance of the THC metabolite. She agreed also to have her milk and blood sampled simultaneously about an hour after a smoke. The milk had eight times as much THC as the blood plasma." Ibid., p. 79.Return

(14) National Institute of Drug Abuse, "Marijuana: Facts Parents Need to Know," Revised, November 1998.Return

(15) Bauer, Walter, Gingrich, F. Wilbur, and Danker, Frederick W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 1979. Return

(16) "In general, only a small amount of smoked cannabis (e.g. 2-3 mg of available THC) is required to produce a brief pleasureable high for the occasional user, and a single joint may be sufficient for two or three individuals." Solowij, op. cit., p. 20. Return

(17) nephalios, (derivative of nepho 'to be restrained,' 88.86) pertaining to behaving in a sober, restrained manner - 'sober, restrained.' episcopon…nephalion, sophrona, kosmion' 'a church leader…must be sober, self-controlled, and orderly' 1 Tm 3.2. In a number of languages nephalios may be idiomatically rendered as 'one who holds himself in' or 'one who always has a halter on himself.' Louw, Johannes P. and Nida, Eugene A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains, (New York: United Bible Societies) 1988, 1989. Return

(18) Bauer, Walter, Gingrich, F. Wilbur, and Danker, Frederick W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 1979. Return

(19) Ibid. Return

(20) "Under U. S. law since 1970, marijuana has been a Schedule I controlled substance. This means that the drug, at least in its smoked form, has no commonly accepted medical use." National Institute of Drug Abuse, "Marijuana: Facts Parents Need to Know," Revised, November 1998. Return

(21) 53.100 pharmakeia, pharmakon: the use of magic, often involving drugs and the casting of spells upon people - 'to practice magic, to cast spells upon, to engage in sorcery, magic, sorcery.' Louw, Johannes P. and Nida, Eugene A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains, (New York: United Bible Societies) 1988, 1989. Return

(22) Thayer, J. H., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (New York, NY: American Book Company) 1886. Return

(23) pharmakeia, the use of drugs, potions, spells, Plat. 2. poisoning, witchcraft, Lat. veneficium, Dem. II. remedy, cure, Arist. Liddell, H. G., and Scott, Abridged Greek-English Lexicon, (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 1992.Return

(24) Okay, for you coffee-snobs out there, replace "Maxwell House" with "Starbucks." Return