Showing posts with label drinking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drinking. Show all posts
Friday, January 27, 2012
Wine Making in Ancient Israel
Jim Davila of St. Andrews, Scotland, noticed this article in the Jerusalem Post today on wine and wine making in ancient Israel: http://www.jpost.com/ArtsAndCulture/FoodAndWine/Article.aspx?id=255308
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Martin Luther vs. Communism
I tried to think of an interesting title to go with our side trips on the way home from Berlin to Wittenberg and Leipzig yesterday. Wittenberg is the city where Luther taught and in 1537 nailed 95 arguments on the door of the cathedral, setting into motion what would become the birth of Protestantism.
As is often the case, he could not have imagined the effect that invitation to debate would have on history. When my children asked, "What's Protestantism?" I scarcely knew what to say. It's a massive amount of reality right now. It's all the churches everywhere in Marion except for one. It's a massive amount of history.
Another piece of history is in Wittenberg too. That's the fact that from 1945 to 1990 this town was in East Germany. From 1961 to 1989 this place was divided from the rest of the world by a fence. You pass buildings that look like no one has done anything with them since WW2. You pass a massive chemical plant.
We only drove partially into Leipzig. I wanted to see this formerly east German city where Heisenburg (physics, early 1900s) and Lessing (theology and literature, 1700s) taught. This is the city where Goethe (1700s, poet, writer), and philosophers Leibniz (1700s) and Nietzsche (1800s) studied. A lot of it now looks like driving down mid-city Adams street in Marion, with abandoned factories.
What does it do to a person to grow up under that kind of communism. You can take the person out of the wall, but can you truly take the wall out of the person? And even if your children grow up without the wall, it will affect the way you raise them, your attitudes toward how to behave.
My guess would be that most east Germans are probably not bubbling over with friendliness and a drive to help you when you are in need. One lady in Wittenberg was perfectly helpful with directions when asked. Another at their version of Sams Club in Leipzig was not.
I thought of the legalism that pervaded the Wesleyan Church in the mid-1900s. Even after we stopped dressing like that, it arguably has an effect. Maybe you put that legalism into how you dress as a professional now or maybe you go anti-legalism and become a rebel. Maybe you just transfer your legalism to the next issue--so now you're legalistic about drinking or apply it to a rigid sense of justice in your politics or in your grading.
I wondered whether I would find more leniency with the speed limit in east Germany or west?
As is often the case, he could not have imagined the effect that invitation to debate would have on history. When my children asked, "What's Protestantism?" I scarcely knew what to say. It's a massive amount of reality right now. It's all the churches everywhere in Marion except for one. It's a massive amount of history.
Another piece of history is in Wittenberg too. That's the fact that from 1945 to 1990 this town was in East Germany. From 1961 to 1989 this place was divided from the rest of the world by a fence. You pass buildings that look like no one has done anything with them since WW2. You pass a massive chemical plant.
We only drove partially into Leipzig. I wanted to see this formerly east German city where Heisenburg (physics, early 1900s) and Lessing (theology and literature, 1700s) taught. This is the city where Goethe (1700s, poet, writer), and philosophers Leibniz (1700s) and Nietzsche (1800s) studied. A lot of it now looks like driving down mid-city Adams street in Marion, with abandoned factories.
What does it do to a person to grow up under that kind of communism. You can take the person out of the wall, but can you truly take the wall out of the person? And even if your children grow up without the wall, it will affect the way you raise them, your attitudes toward how to behave.
My guess would be that most east Germans are probably not bubbling over with friendliness and a drive to help you when you are in need. One lady in Wittenberg was perfectly helpful with directions when asked. Another at their version of Sams Club in Leipzig was not.
I thought of the legalism that pervaded the Wesleyan Church in the mid-1900s. Even after we stopped dressing like that, it arguably has an effect. Maybe you put that legalism into how you dress as a professional now or maybe you go anti-legalism and become a rebel. Maybe you just transfer your legalism to the next issue--so now you're legalistic about drinking or apply it to a rigid sense of justice in your politics or in your grading.
I wondered whether I would find more leniency with the speed limit in east Germany or west?
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Membership Case Study: The Wesleyan Church
Thinking of how to set up a discussion for a seminary course that contrasts what churches require for membership and what God requires for a person to be in His Church. What do you think about this set up? ... thought it might be helpful to get feedback before it went any further.
________
Protestant groups make a strong connection between their beliefs and the Bible. The sixth of the 39 articles of the Anglican Church (1563) reads that "Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation, so that whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any one, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." The Methodist tradition followed suit in its Disciplines (e.g., the Methodist Episcopal Church of 1784; the African Methodist Episcopal Church of 1816; etc.). And this statement made its way into the The Discipline of The Wesleyan Church as well.
In practice, however, the "reading" and "proving" of things in Scripture has resulted in an immense variety of beliefs and practices among Protestant groups. This last century has suggested some fundamental reasons why. The default mode of reading the Bible seems to be a strange mixture of anachronistic interpretation, failing to recognize differences between how the words strike us and how they would have struck their original audiences, and this largely without realizing it. A person might think they are simply believing or requiring things that can be "proved" from Scripture when in fact they may be "contemporizing" the meaning, seeing things in the text that were not originally there. Alternatively, they might apply Scriptures to today that arguably do not apply directly to our context.
The second potential misstep is one of application. For example, the Wesleyan Discipline has some general statements in relation to modesty. Although these are stated generally, fifty years ago they would have kept from Wesleyan membership a woman who did not wear long enough dresses or who cut her hair short. In conservative groups that separated from Wesleyan and other holiness churches, such requirements remain at least implicit and sometimes explicit membership requirements even today.
Can a requirement that a woman should not cut her hair or should not adorn herself with fine gold be required on the basis of Scripture? Yes, arguably they can, if one applies 1 Corinthians 11 or 1 Peter 3 directly to today. But does long hair on women or the absence of any jewelry mean the same thing today that it did in the first century? Most American and European Christians would say it does not, as is evident from the way most Christian women dress today. These are, then, potential instances where not taking into account the cultural distance between ourselves and the biblical texts has at least potentially led to misapplication of Scripture in relation to membership, even though requirements could in theory be "proved" from Scripture.
But far more requirements, ones that are considered very important to believe or do, are very difficult to prove from Scripture. The second potential misstep is one of interpretation. For example, the Wesleyan Church has struggled of late over the issue of whether to require all its members to abstain completely from alcohol. In years past, reading modern concerns into the ancient words, Wesleyans had argued that the Bible, properly understood, did not in fact allow for any drinking of alcohol. This is the dynamic we mentioned above, practiced by Christians throughout church history, of "contemporizing" the meaning of the biblical text to reinforce and embody what a particular group senses to be its identity at a particular point in time--or its sense of how the gospel plays out at a given place or time.
We do find verses that rail against the evils of drunkenness. So my forefathers and mothers extended such passages to the first drink. After all, you can never get drunk if you never take a first drink. Then they reinterpreted "naughty verses" that did not easily fit into their paradigm. We say that wine back then wasn't like the strong drink we have in our supermarkets. And maybe, just maybe, the Greek word oinos referred to unfermented wine. We find a group of people we consider scholars to go to work to see if they can finesse the evidence to support the conclusion we want them to reach.
When these sorts of dynamics first come into view, the first impulse is to adjust membership requirements to the real list, the boiled down, absolute list. So we will allow our women to cut their hair and follow their consciences as to what modesty might mean today. Perhaps we start a movement to allow our members to drink alcohol as long as they do so in moderation.
But perhaps we have still missed the underlying principle. Even if there were some bottom line set of principles that we can abstract from the concrete admonitions of Scripture, they would still have to be played out concretely in the varied contexts of today. We are often open to the idea that some biblical injunctions do not apply to today because of cultural differences--so our women may not veil themselves any more as in 1 Corinthians 11. But it is a virtual certainty that there will also be things we cannot do today that they could do in biblical times, playing out the cultural principle. It is thus possible that there are modern contexts where it is not appropriate for Christians to drink, even though believers could in Bible times. There will likely be things that Christians in New Zealand or Nicaragua should not do that American Christians can... and visa versa.
Our goal cannot be, in the end, to model church membership on all the exact specifics of the way some portion of those in the Bible looked or even believed! They differed from each other in how they looked and believed, in terms of all the specifics (not denying that we might find a common core among New Testament believers). By the same token, the transfer of biblical requirements to the many different contexts of today will also result in varied expectations, not only meaning the differences between Singapore, Moscow, and New York City, but also the differences between New York City and a place like Marion, Indiana.
No doubt some will object strongly to the notion of membership at all. Does not God decide who is in His Church? Who are we to put requirements on others once we recognize that any list we create is bound to be laden with the idiosyncrasies of passing culture?
In many respects, this is a great thought. Would we really turn away anyone from our doors who was truly seeking God with all their heart? Don't we want to recognize humbly that we do not have a corner on God's mind and, indeed, that our tradition may not be correct on everything?
On the other hand, whoever preaches, whoever teaches, whoever has a "word from the Lord" is going to make truth claims. At some point, we will find disagreement among those who call themselves God's children. Groups meet together because they have some common vision or understanding, something that binds them. A group that was non-committal on everything about which Christians disagree would be a truly bland group indeed, with little to teach and little to do. Church groupings embody a kind of vitality that a vanilla, boiled down core could never have.
And in practice, few of us are going to go start--or attend--a house church. That means we are stuck with existing churches and denominations. And even non-denominational churches stand within traditions. They will almost certainly baptize in a certain way, preach that you should or should not do certain things. Do they believe in speaking in tongues or not? Do they believe in eternal security or not? What do they think evangelism means? How is the church's leadership structured? Answers to these sorts of questions identify the influences of Christian traditions on a church, whether it is connected to other churches or not.
So if there are clear limits to the churches in which we find ourselves, then in practice we simply do not have the authority to decide fully who can be a member of our church and who cannot. These are more givens. The vast majority of believers are located in specific churches in specific denominations and traditions with specific understandings. This will never go away, no matter how much momentum the house church movement gains.
A second practicality has to do with leadership. It is a wonderful theory to consider anyone in your church a member who attends and makes some sort of confession of Christian faith. But who do you allow to lead the church? Who can bring a word to the congregation and who will steer those words when they seem to go off track? If a group holds certain beliefs or practices dear as central to their identity, how will they keep them from disappearing when individuals from other traditions start worshipping with them or broader cultural influences take hold? Should they even be worrying about such things?
The title of this piece proclaimed it a case study in local church membership, based on The Wesleyan Church. This church has been wrestling with these sorts of issues now for a couple decades. On the one hand, it was earlier a denomination of relatively small churches, and small churches hold their unique identities well. Membership requirements were extensive, delving into the minutia of a believer's life and playing out various artifacts of its nineteenth century origins, things like prohibitions on dancing or playing cards.
The last few decades have seen a pruning of some of these many particularities, sometimes because the general populace--including church leaders--had come to ignore them. What is the point of having a statement about not going to movies when your general officials themselves go to movies? It trivializes the instructions we do value. At some points changes were made because of increased maturity in biblical understanding. For example, the New Testament does not equate the Jewish Sabbath with Sunday, so there is no biblical basis for prohibiting a Christian from buying and selling on Sunday (though ironically we might have been justified in forbidding it on Saturday).
In recent times, however, a point of real growth has taken place because of the dynamics of our larger churches. These churches have attracted many believers from other traditions. They worship with us. They give tithes and offerings to us. They are clearly believers. Will we really tell them that they are not members of our church because they drink moderately, which is clearly allowed biblically? Will we keep them from voting on whether to start a Christian school because they believe a person cannot lose their salvation--especially when they want to give $10,000 toward that new wing?
This tension has caused some changes in the way The Wesleyan Church structures its membership. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, it is impossible to claim that only those who look, believe, and behave the way we do are truly Christians. Clearly there are many believers out there who are our brothers and sisters but who simply disagree with us on the particulars of our faith and practice. They are part of God's Church, but history has left it difficult for them to be members of my church. How can a tradition, embodied in a local church, remain true to its identity as a witness to a certain understanding, and yet acknowledge all those who truly confess faith within its halls to be Christians?
The Wesleyan Church has struggled with this tension. Its current solution is not perfect, but it is an honorable attempt to be faithful to these two principles. On the one hand, it has what it calls "community" membership. In theory, anyone who confesses faith in Christ and manifests the most basic common understandings of what that means in belief and practice, can be such a member. These individuals fully participate in the life of the local congregation as members.
On the other hand, we have another category called "covenant" membership. It is identification with the Wesleyan tradition and the conglomeration of churches that form The Wesleyan Church. It pertains to the highest level of leadership in the local church as well as representation to bodies beyond the local church.
The matter of alcohol is a case in point. There are many American Christians who have a vibrant faith yet drink moderately. The Wesleyan Church, however, has historically chosen to be abstinent as a statement against the consequences that often result from drinking in broken lives and uncontrolled actions. And so we now have community members who drink moderately, while Wesleyan leadership binds itself--beyond the biblical requirements--not to drink at all.
As the world "flattens," it becomes increasingly hard for Christian traditions to separate themselves from one another and go off to their own little enclaves. The result is that our children know Christians from other denominations and fellowships. Indeed, they know people from other religions. We will increasingly have to defend our specific identities in ways we did not fifty years ago. And each group will have to work out how to be who they are without denying that there are other believers out there with significantly different understandings and practices--with all of us looking at the same Bible.
________
Protestant groups make a strong connection between their beliefs and the Bible. The sixth of the 39 articles of the Anglican Church (1563) reads that "Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation, so that whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any one, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." The Methodist tradition followed suit in its Disciplines (e.g., the Methodist Episcopal Church of 1784; the African Methodist Episcopal Church of 1816; etc.). And this statement made its way into the The Discipline of The Wesleyan Church as well.
In practice, however, the "reading" and "proving" of things in Scripture has resulted in an immense variety of beliefs and practices among Protestant groups. This last century has suggested some fundamental reasons why. The default mode of reading the Bible seems to be a strange mixture of anachronistic interpretation, failing to recognize differences between how the words strike us and how they would have struck their original audiences, and this largely without realizing it. A person might think they are simply believing or requiring things that can be "proved" from Scripture when in fact they may be "contemporizing" the meaning, seeing things in the text that were not originally there. Alternatively, they might apply Scriptures to today that arguably do not apply directly to our context.
The second potential misstep is one of application. For example, the Wesleyan Discipline has some general statements in relation to modesty. Although these are stated generally, fifty years ago they would have kept from Wesleyan membership a woman who did not wear long enough dresses or who cut her hair short. In conservative groups that separated from Wesleyan and other holiness churches, such requirements remain at least implicit and sometimes explicit membership requirements even today.
Can a requirement that a woman should not cut her hair or should not adorn herself with fine gold be required on the basis of Scripture? Yes, arguably they can, if one applies 1 Corinthians 11 or 1 Peter 3 directly to today. But does long hair on women or the absence of any jewelry mean the same thing today that it did in the first century? Most American and European Christians would say it does not, as is evident from the way most Christian women dress today. These are, then, potential instances where not taking into account the cultural distance between ourselves and the biblical texts has at least potentially led to misapplication of Scripture in relation to membership, even though requirements could in theory be "proved" from Scripture.
But far more requirements, ones that are considered very important to believe or do, are very difficult to prove from Scripture. The second potential misstep is one of interpretation. For example, the Wesleyan Church has struggled of late over the issue of whether to require all its members to abstain completely from alcohol. In years past, reading modern concerns into the ancient words, Wesleyans had argued that the Bible, properly understood, did not in fact allow for any drinking of alcohol. This is the dynamic we mentioned above, practiced by Christians throughout church history, of "contemporizing" the meaning of the biblical text to reinforce and embody what a particular group senses to be its identity at a particular point in time--or its sense of how the gospel plays out at a given place or time.
We do find verses that rail against the evils of drunkenness. So my forefathers and mothers extended such passages to the first drink. After all, you can never get drunk if you never take a first drink. Then they reinterpreted "naughty verses" that did not easily fit into their paradigm. We say that wine back then wasn't like the strong drink we have in our supermarkets. And maybe, just maybe, the Greek word oinos referred to unfermented wine. We find a group of people we consider scholars to go to work to see if they can finesse the evidence to support the conclusion we want them to reach.
When these sorts of dynamics first come into view, the first impulse is to adjust membership requirements to the real list, the boiled down, absolute list. So we will allow our women to cut their hair and follow their consciences as to what modesty might mean today. Perhaps we start a movement to allow our members to drink alcohol as long as they do so in moderation.
But perhaps we have still missed the underlying principle. Even if there were some bottom line set of principles that we can abstract from the concrete admonitions of Scripture, they would still have to be played out concretely in the varied contexts of today. We are often open to the idea that some biblical injunctions do not apply to today because of cultural differences--so our women may not veil themselves any more as in 1 Corinthians 11. But it is a virtual certainty that there will also be things we cannot do today that they could do in biblical times, playing out the cultural principle. It is thus possible that there are modern contexts where it is not appropriate for Christians to drink, even though believers could in Bible times. There will likely be things that Christians in New Zealand or Nicaragua should not do that American Christians can... and visa versa.
Our goal cannot be, in the end, to model church membership on all the exact specifics of the way some portion of those in the Bible looked or even believed! They differed from each other in how they looked and believed, in terms of all the specifics (not denying that we might find a common core among New Testament believers). By the same token, the transfer of biblical requirements to the many different contexts of today will also result in varied expectations, not only meaning the differences between Singapore, Moscow, and New York City, but also the differences between New York City and a place like Marion, Indiana.
No doubt some will object strongly to the notion of membership at all. Does not God decide who is in His Church? Who are we to put requirements on others once we recognize that any list we create is bound to be laden with the idiosyncrasies of passing culture?
In many respects, this is a great thought. Would we really turn away anyone from our doors who was truly seeking God with all their heart? Don't we want to recognize humbly that we do not have a corner on God's mind and, indeed, that our tradition may not be correct on everything?
On the other hand, whoever preaches, whoever teaches, whoever has a "word from the Lord" is going to make truth claims. At some point, we will find disagreement among those who call themselves God's children. Groups meet together because they have some common vision or understanding, something that binds them. A group that was non-committal on everything about which Christians disagree would be a truly bland group indeed, with little to teach and little to do. Church groupings embody a kind of vitality that a vanilla, boiled down core could never have.
And in practice, few of us are going to go start--or attend--a house church. That means we are stuck with existing churches and denominations. And even non-denominational churches stand within traditions. They will almost certainly baptize in a certain way, preach that you should or should not do certain things. Do they believe in speaking in tongues or not? Do they believe in eternal security or not? What do they think evangelism means? How is the church's leadership structured? Answers to these sorts of questions identify the influences of Christian traditions on a church, whether it is connected to other churches or not.
So if there are clear limits to the churches in which we find ourselves, then in practice we simply do not have the authority to decide fully who can be a member of our church and who cannot. These are more givens. The vast majority of believers are located in specific churches in specific denominations and traditions with specific understandings. This will never go away, no matter how much momentum the house church movement gains.
A second practicality has to do with leadership. It is a wonderful theory to consider anyone in your church a member who attends and makes some sort of confession of Christian faith. But who do you allow to lead the church? Who can bring a word to the congregation and who will steer those words when they seem to go off track? If a group holds certain beliefs or practices dear as central to their identity, how will they keep them from disappearing when individuals from other traditions start worshipping with them or broader cultural influences take hold? Should they even be worrying about such things?
The title of this piece proclaimed it a case study in local church membership, based on The Wesleyan Church. This church has been wrestling with these sorts of issues now for a couple decades. On the one hand, it was earlier a denomination of relatively small churches, and small churches hold their unique identities well. Membership requirements were extensive, delving into the minutia of a believer's life and playing out various artifacts of its nineteenth century origins, things like prohibitions on dancing or playing cards.
The last few decades have seen a pruning of some of these many particularities, sometimes because the general populace--including church leaders--had come to ignore them. What is the point of having a statement about not going to movies when your general officials themselves go to movies? It trivializes the instructions we do value. At some points changes were made because of increased maturity in biblical understanding. For example, the New Testament does not equate the Jewish Sabbath with Sunday, so there is no biblical basis for prohibiting a Christian from buying and selling on Sunday (though ironically we might have been justified in forbidding it on Saturday).
In recent times, however, a point of real growth has taken place because of the dynamics of our larger churches. These churches have attracted many believers from other traditions. They worship with us. They give tithes and offerings to us. They are clearly believers. Will we really tell them that they are not members of our church because they drink moderately, which is clearly allowed biblically? Will we keep them from voting on whether to start a Christian school because they believe a person cannot lose their salvation--especially when they want to give $10,000 toward that new wing?
This tension has caused some changes in the way The Wesleyan Church structures its membership. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, it is impossible to claim that only those who look, believe, and behave the way we do are truly Christians. Clearly there are many believers out there who are our brothers and sisters but who simply disagree with us on the particulars of our faith and practice. They are part of God's Church, but history has left it difficult for them to be members of my church. How can a tradition, embodied in a local church, remain true to its identity as a witness to a certain understanding, and yet acknowledge all those who truly confess faith within its halls to be Christians?
The Wesleyan Church has struggled with this tension. Its current solution is not perfect, but it is an honorable attempt to be faithful to these two principles. On the one hand, it has what it calls "community" membership. In theory, anyone who confesses faith in Christ and manifests the most basic common understandings of what that means in belief and practice, can be such a member. These individuals fully participate in the life of the local congregation as members.
On the other hand, we have another category called "covenant" membership. It is identification with the Wesleyan tradition and the conglomeration of churches that form The Wesleyan Church. It pertains to the highest level of leadership in the local church as well as representation to bodies beyond the local church.
The matter of alcohol is a case in point. There are many American Christians who have a vibrant faith yet drink moderately. The Wesleyan Church, however, has historically chosen to be abstinent as a statement against the consequences that often result from drinking in broken lives and uncontrolled actions. And so we now have community members who drink moderately, while Wesleyan leadership binds itself--beyond the biblical requirements--not to drink at all.
As the world "flattens," it becomes increasingly hard for Christian traditions to separate themselves from one another and go off to their own little enclaves. The result is that our children know Christians from other denominations and fellowships. Indeed, they know people from other religions. We will increasingly have to defend our specific identities in ways we did not fifty years ago. And each group will have to work out how to be who they are without denying that there are other believers out there with significantly different understandings and practices--with all of us looking at the same Bible.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Conversation 2: Wesleyans and Membership
Tom: So what were you saying about the Discipline Monday, Jane? Something about things being in strange places?
Jane: Yeah, to start off with, it's very difficult to change things like the Articles of Religion or covenant membership requirements because things not only have to pass the General Conference by two-thirds majority, they have to pass a two-thirds majority of all the districts in the North American General Conference, as well as other full General Conferences like the Caribbean and Philippine conferences. They have a status equal to the North American General Conference when it comes to the World Wesleyan Fellowship.
Matt: I think that's a good thing. A rogue general conference can't do away with the virgin birth, because it would never pass muster with the church at large.
Mary: And I think that makes the drinking issue somewhat of a moot point. Things like this don't change unless the church does its homework, gets buy in, gets widespread support. When the church has made significant changes in the past on issues like divorce and tongues, it has commissioned four year studies.
By the way, you still haven't convinced me that drunkenness in the Bible just refers to alcoholism.
Tom: So what were you thinking, Jane?
Jane: Well, because of the way it's set up, it's fairly easy to add things to the membership requirements that people feel strongly about. Just a few years ago, we added the idea that marriage was between one man and one woman, for example.
Matt: But it's really hard to take things out.
Jane: Right. So we still have as a membership requirement that Wesleyans will have family devotions every day. But we don't have any statement on abortion in the membership requirements.
Matt: Isn't there a statement on abortion in the "special directions," the place where we used to have stuff on social issues like dancing and going to movies?
Jane: Yes, but not in the membership commitments.
Mary: Are you telling me a person could be a member of our church and have an abortion?
Jane: They could be a member and perform abortions.
Jack: But they can't drink, and they have to have devotions with their families every night.
Matt: It's what happens as we change as a denomination over time. Some things become more important issues; other things recede into the background.
Sally: If I and my friends were to write the membership stuff today, we'd probably put in some things about taking care of the environment and taking care of the poor.
Jack: Try to get my generation to pass that! We don't see things like that as sin.
Sally: We will (smiling)... when we're in charge in a few years.
Jack: I tell you, we shouldn't have anything as membership requirements that isn't basic Christianity, not one thing more than the Bible itself requires of all people.
Matt: But what about things like polygamy and slavery? The Bible never mentions abortion. I don't think Paul or Jesus would have approved of it, but they never say anything about it. No verse in the Bible says anything about it.
Sally: What about the Trinity? I guess Christians worked on that question for almost 400 years after the New Testament was done.
Tom: Actually, I think the issue of polygamy raises a good question, Matt. What do we do when we bring the gospel to a culture where polygamy is accepted? Do we require new converts to divorce two of their wives?
Mary: We should at least have them pick one and stop having sex with the others.
Sally: Tough luck for two of them. What have we actually done in those situations? Keep them out of leadership but keep their families intact as they are?
Tom: I'm not sure any of us in this room are in a position to really understand what we're talking about, let alone that we should be deciding all these sorts of things for them.
Jack: Sure we can.
Matt: Spoken like a true Boomer (smiling).
Tom: But when it comes to things like drinking. If our stance on drinking is weird to some people in our larger churches now and to the younger generation, you can imagine how odd it is to Wesleyans in Australia.
Jane: It seems to me that several different things are going on. On the one hand, half the Wesleyan Church today is like the Wesleyan Church of the past, a group culture where membership requirements mirrored a fairly monolithic "culture." We wouldn't allow men to go around without their shirts because that's what most of us looked like.
Sally: And my generation doesn't get any of that. We think that we need to blend in, make friends with others. We don't think Christians should look different than other people, as if we're better than they are.
Mary: Then how will anyone know you're even a Christian?
Matt: This is way too complex to hammer out in a few minutes.
Jane: I think it's too complex to hammer out in a General Conference. Someone needs to do some serious study of the assumptions in our current membership structure--things those who designed the Discipline may not have even realized they were assuming.
Jack: What makes a person a member? Is it attending and being a Christian?
Mary: Or is it our historical understanding of what the Bible teaches, including special understandings we have on things like drinking?
Matt: Or is it less absolute and more a matter of what we as a group affirm, without claiming that other groups are less Christian because they do things differently?
Tom: And let's not forget that we are no longer a monolithic group. I personally think membership requirements should be more "local" than universal.
Matt: ... because the universals of the gospel play out differently in different contexts.
Sally: I personally think they should revisit membership requirements every other decade or so, because things change so quickly.
Jane: Maybe they could write that into the Discipline.
Matt: We'll see soon enough whether anything changes.
Jane: Oh things will continue to change... it always has... whether officially or unofficially.
Jane: Yeah, to start off with, it's very difficult to change things like the Articles of Religion or covenant membership requirements because things not only have to pass the General Conference by two-thirds majority, they have to pass a two-thirds majority of all the districts in the North American General Conference, as well as other full General Conferences like the Caribbean and Philippine conferences. They have a status equal to the North American General Conference when it comes to the World Wesleyan Fellowship.
Matt: I think that's a good thing. A rogue general conference can't do away with the virgin birth, because it would never pass muster with the church at large.
Mary: And I think that makes the drinking issue somewhat of a moot point. Things like this don't change unless the church does its homework, gets buy in, gets widespread support. When the church has made significant changes in the past on issues like divorce and tongues, it has commissioned four year studies.
By the way, you still haven't convinced me that drunkenness in the Bible just refers to alcoholism.
Tom: So what were you thinking, Jane?
Jane: Well, because of the way it's set up, it's fairly easy to add things to the membership requirements that people feel strongly about. Just a few years ago, we added the idea that marriage was between one man and one woman, for example.
Matt: But it's really hard to take things out.
Jane: Right. So we still have as a membership requirement that Wesleyans will have family devotions every day. But we don't have any statement on abortion in the membership requirements.
Matt: Isn't there a statement on abortion in the "special directions," the place where we used to have stuff on social issues like dancing and going to movies?
Jane: Yes, but not in the membership commitments.
Mary: Are you telling me a person could be a member of our church and have an abortion?
Jane: They could be a member and perform abortions.
Jack: But they can't drink, and they have to have devotions with their families every night.
Matt: It's what happens as we change as a denomination over time. Some things become more important issues; other things recede into the background.
Sally: If I and my friends were to write the membership stuff today, we'd probably put in some things about taking care of the environment and taking care of the poor.
Jack: Try to get my generation to pass that! We don't see things like that as sin.
Sally: We will (smiling)... when we're in charge in a few years.
Jack: I tell you, we shouldn't have anything as membership requirements that isn't basic Christianity, not one thing more than the Bible itself requires of all people.
Matt: But what about things like polygamy and slavery? The Bible never mentions abortion. I don't think Paul or Jesus would have approved of it, but they never say anything about it. No verse in the Bible says anything about it.
Sally: What about the Trinity? I guess Christians worked on that question for almost 400 years after the New Testament was done.
Tom: Actually, I think the issue of polygamy raises a good question, Matt. What do we do when we bring the gospel to a culture where polygamy is accepted? Do we require new converts to divorce two of their wives?
Mary: We should at least have them pick one and stop having sex with the others.
Sally: Tough luck for two of them. What have we actually done in those situations? Keep them out of leadership but keep their families intact as they are?
Tom: I'm not sure any of us in this room are in a position to really understand what we're talking about, let alone that we should be deciding all these sorts of things for them.
Jack: Sure we can.
Matt: Spoken like a true Boomer (smiling).
Tom: But when it comes to things like drinking. If our stance on drinking is weird to some people in our larger churches now and to the younger generation, you can imagine how odd it is to Wesleyans in Australia.
Jane: It seems to me that several different things are going on. On the one hand, half the Wesleyan Church today is like the Wesleyan Church of the past, a group culture where membership requirements mirrored a fairly monolithic "culture." We wouldn't allow men to go around without their shirts because that's what most of us looked like.
Sally: And my generation doesn't get any of that. We think that we need to blend in, make friends with others. We don't think Christians should look different than other people, as if we're better than they are.
Mary: Then how will anyone know you're even a Christian?
Matt: This is way too complex to hammer out in a few minutes.
Jane: I think it's too complex to hammer out in a General Conference. Someone needs to do some serious study of the assumptions in our current membership structure--things those who designed the Discipline may not have even realized they were assuming.
Jack: What makes a person a member? Is it attending and being a Christian?
Mary: Or is it our historical understanding of what the Bible teaches, including special understandings we have on things like drinking?
Matt: Or is it less absolute and more a matter of what we as a group affirm, without claiming that other groups are less Christian because they do things differently?
Tom: And let's not forget that we are no longer a monolithic group. I personally think membership requirements should be more "local" than universal.
Matt: ... because the universals of the gospel play out differently in different contexts.
Sally: I personally think they should revisit membership requirements every other decade or so, because things change so quickly.
Jane: Maybe they could write that into the Discipline.
Matt: We'll see soon enough whether anything changes.
Jane: Oh things will continue to change... it always has... whether officially or unofficially.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Monday Thoughts: Wesleyans and Drinking, An Imaginary Conversation
Jane: I just found out that only 11% of U.S. Americans are lifelong abstainers from drinking. If the Wesleyan Church won't allow its members to drink, aren't we basically telling 89% of the American population that they can't be Wesleyan?
Matt: Yes, but 50% of Americans didn't drink last year, so the 89% figure is a little high.
Mary: Besides, if a person is really committed to Christ, they will be willing to give up drinking to serve the Lord.
Tom: But you're assuming that there is some connection between drinking and spirituality. I have friends both in America and especially abroad who are more godly than anyone in this discussion but who drink moderately. The biblical issue is drunkenness, not drinking.
Matt: The thing is, how do you know when you're drunk. What if one drink makes you drunk?
Sally: I don't think someone from Bible times would read verses on drunkenness that way, Matt. When the Bible condemns drunkenness, it's talking about someone we would call an alcoholic, someone who does bad things to themselves and others because they drink.
Matt: But if you never take the first drink, you can never become an alcoholic.
Jane: Actually, only about 3.5% of Americans last year were classified as alcoholic, another 5% would fall into the category of individuals whose abuse of alcohol became destructive. So about 8.5% of Americans last year had a problem with drinking or 17% of those who drank had problems.
Tom: And Christians should be very clear about those who abuse alcohol. Sometimes I think the fact that we lump all individuals who drink alcohol together causes us to miss the biblical point--this 8.5% need help, some of them need help from themselves, some of them we need to protect others from.
On the other hand, we are just as mistaken to think the other 83% of drinkers automatically have a spiritual problem as we were when we used to judge women who cut their hair.
Mary: I just think we're caving into the pressures of the world. Why should we let the world set our agenda? We need to be telling the world how to change, not changing for the world.
Sally: I don't really care personally one way or another--I tried a beer once in college and hated it. And it would definitely not be worth changing the rules if it caused some sort of a split in our church. But I don't see how the rules can stay the way they are forever. If the Bible does not prohibit drinking, then I don't see how we can continue to prohibit it, especially when we are really engaging the world.
Mary: I just don't agree that the Bible allows drinking. I know a fellow with a PhD who teaches at a Christian college who has written a booklet that shows that what the Bible calls wine was actually unfermented grape juice.
Tom: I don't see how that could be the case. Jesus distinguishes himself from John the Baptist in Matthew 11:18-19 by saying that John came not drinking while he came drinking. John was a Nazirite, so didn't drink alcohol. By the way, since most Israelites were not Nazirites, the implication is that most of them did drink alcohol.
Jesus says that as a result of him drinking, his opponents called him a drunkard. Of course I don't believe Jesus was a drunkard, but the accusation doesn't make any sense unless he drank the kind of alcohol that could make you drunk.
Sally: I agree that Jesus drank, but I am a little concerned about what trajectory our church might go on if it allowed drinking. To so many, it will feel like we're going liberal. Will we accept homosexuality next?
Tom: That's the slippery slope argument.
Sally: Well, I'm not suggesting if we allow drinking we'll all stop believing in the virgin birth. I just think that people need to feel like they stand for something, and if all we ever do is loosen the rules, it doesn't feel like we're any different from anyone else.
Tom: That's why it's important no matter what we continue to take a strong stand against biblical drunkenness. I have a Christian friend from another denomination who's a prosecuting attorney. He is always telling me how evil alcohol is for that 10% Jane was talking about--it needs to be preached against vigorously.
But interestingly enough, my friend drinks. It seems to me that he has the biblical equation right.
Jack: I haven't said anything but I'm a little worried about my children staying with the Wesleyan Church over things like these. We go to a large church with a lot of people who weren't raised Wesleyan. They want to be members but don't understand things that seem quirky to them. They hear people joking about how we didn't used to dance or go to movies.
Drinking is the same way to them. They have a glass of wine with their supper, but we've never seen them drunk. My children have been exposed to so many other Christians that I'm afraid they'll look on our church as backward and go somewhere else.
Mary: They wouldn't if their heart was right with God. They would be willing to surrender their pride and submit to God.
Tom: But Mary, you're again assuming that God has a horse in this race. If God loves the non-denominational church around the corner as much as He loves the Wesleyan Church, then it's not a matter of submission to God where they go. We shouldn't be different just to be different. We should be different on things that God has called us to be different.
Jack: When we were a little denomination that no one had heard of, it didn't matter that we had Wesleyan wads and didn't wear wedding rings. But when our position on drinking begins to be an unecessary hindrance in our bigger churches that are really reaching out to others, then we have to streamline our requirements. I know several large churches that already ignore the Discipline on these sorts of things because they are a hindrance to the gospel.
If the Bible doesn't prohibit drinking, then we shouldn't prohibit drinking.
Matt: The Bible doesn't prohibit polygamy. Show me the verse where it does. The Bible doesn't prohibit slavery. Paul assumes it in Colossians. Membership issues have to do with playing out biblical principles in specific contexts. If drinking is a bad witness to our culture, then we shouldn't drink to be that witness.
Sally: I'm just afraid this will tear the church apart.
Tom: And we don't want that to happen, I agree. That's a bottom line for me.
Jane: You know, as I've looked at the Wesleyan Discipline, I think there are some more fundamental issues to be raised about the process of editing membership requirements. There are some really strange things about what we require and where.
Tom: Sounds like another discussion for another day, I have to go pick up my kids from school.
Matt: Yes, but 50% of Americans didn't drink last year, so the 89% figure is a little high.
Mary: Besides, if a person is really committed to Christ, they will be willing to give up drinking to serve the Lord.
Tom: But you're assuming that there is some connection between drinking and spirituality. I have friends both in America and especially abroad who are more godly than anyone in this discussion but who drink moderately. The biblical issue is drunkenness, not drinking.
Matt: The thing is, how do you know when you're drunk. What if one drink makes you drunk?
Sally: I don't think someone from Bible times would read verses on drunkenness that way, Matt. When the Bible condemns drunkenness, it's talking about someone we would call an alcoholic, someone who does bad things to themselves and others because they drink.
Matt: But if you never take the first drink, you can never become an alcoholic.
Jane: Actually, only about 3.5% of Americans last year were classified as alcoholic, another 5% would fall into the category of individuals whose abuse of alcohol became destructive. So about 8.5% of Americans last year had a problem with drinking or 17% of those who drank had problems.
Tom: And Christians should be very clear about those who abuse alcohol. Sometimes I think the fact that we lump all individuals who drink alcohol together causes us to miss the biblical point--this 8.5% need help, some of them need help from themselves, some of them we need to protect others from.
On the other hand, we are just as mistaken to think the other 83% of drinkers automatically have a spiritual problem as we were when we used to judge women who cut their hair.
Mary: I just think we're caving into the pressures of the world. Why should we let the world set our agenda? We need to be telling the world how to change, not changing for the world.
Sally: I don't really care personally one way or another--I tried a beer once in college and hated it. And it would definitely not be worth changing the rules if it caused some sort of a split in our church. But I don't see how the rules can stay the way they are forever. If the Bible does not prohibit drinking, then I don't see how we can continue to prohibit it, especially when we are really engaging the world.
Mary: I just don't agree that the Bible allows drinking. I know a fellow with a PhD who teaches at a Christian college who has written a booklet that shows that what the Bible calls wine was actually unfermented grape juice.
Tom: I don't see how that could be the case. Jesus distinguishes himself from John the Baptist in Matthew 11:18-19 by saying that John came not drinking while he came drinking. John was a Nazirite, so didn't drink alcohol. By the way, since most Israelites were not Nazirites, the implication is that most of them did drink alcohol.
Jesus says that as a result of him drinking, his opponents called him a drunkard. Of course I don't believe Jesus was a drunkard, but the accusation doesn't make any sense unless he drank the kind of alcohol that could make you drunk.
Sally: I agree that Jesus drank, but I am a little concerned about what trajectory our church might go on if it allowed drinking. To so many, it will feel like we're going liberal. Will we accept homosexuality next?
Tom: That's the slippery slope argument.
Sally: Well, I'm not suggesting if we allow drinking we'll all stop believing in the virgin birth. I just think that people need to feel like they stand for something, and if all we ever do is loosen the rules, it doesn't feel like we're any different from anyone else.
Tom: That's why it's important no matter what we continue to take a strong stand against biblical drunkenness. I have a Christian friend from another denomination who's a prosecuting attorney. He is always telling me how evil alcohol is for that 10% Jane was talking about--it needs to be preached against vigorously.
But interestingly enough, my friend drinks. It seems to me that he has the biblical equation right.
Jack: I haven't said anything but I'm a little worried about my children staying with the Wesleyan Church over things like these. We go to a large church with a lot of people who weren't raised Wesleyan. They want to be members but don't understand things that seem quirky to them. They hear people joking about how we didn't used to dance or go to movies.
Drinking is the same way to them. They have a glass of wine with their supper, but we've never seen them drunk. My children have been exposed to so many other Christians that I'm afraid they'll look on our church as backward and go somewhere else.
Mary: They wouldn't if their heart was right with God. They would be willing to surrender their pride and submit to God.
Tom: But Mary, you're again assuming that God has a horse in this race. If God loves the non-denominational church around the corner as much as He loves the Wesleyan Church, then it's not a matter of submission to God where they go. We shouldn't be different just to be different. We should be different on things that God has called us to be different.
Jack: When we were a little denomination that no one had heard of, it didn't matter that we had Wesleyan wads and didn't wear wedding rings. But when our position on drinking begins to be an unecessary hindrance in our bigger churches that are really reaching out to others, then we have to streamline our requirements. I know several large churches that already ignore the Discipline on these sorts of things because they are a hindrance to the gospel.
If the Bible doesn't prohibit drinking, then we shouldn't prohibit drinking.
Matt: The Bible doesn't prohibit polygamy. Show me the verse where it does. The Bible doesn't prohibit slavery. Paul assumes it in Colossians. Membership issues have to do with playing out biblical principles in specific contexts. If drinking is a bad witness to our culture, then we shouldn't drink to be that witness.
Sally: I'm just afraid this will tear the church apart.
Tom: And we don't want that to happen, I agree. That's a bottom line for me.
Jane: You know, as I've looked at the Wesleyan Discipline, I think there are some more fundamental issues to be raised about the process of editing membership requirements. There are some really strange things about what we require and where.
Tom: Sounds like another discussion for another day, I have to go pick up my kids from school.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Drinking and the Wesleyan Church
I didn't realize how hot this issue apparently is for some Wesleyans. Of course I've always assumed that the Wesleyan base was so opposed to drinking that this was a non-issue except for some of the larger churches with members who didn't come from a Wesleyan background. I've been fine with some of these churches just fudging on the issue with their members and otherwise just letting a sleeping dog lie.
In my opinion, it would be a sad statement if our church had anything like a split over an issue like this one--a sad comment on both sides! God has not commanded us to drink or not to drink, but he has commanded us to be of one spirit. When the Episcopals and Methodists are divided over things like homosexuality among the clergy, we would prove to be petty Christians if we split over drinking!
If those who would stay would be the ones with the right attitude (not the ones who won--whichever way), I'd be more than happy for the divisive on both sides to leave.
The truth issue
Ironically, there is widespread agreement on what the Bible teaches on this issue, although the most conservative element in our church would still deny it. Drunkenness is not stomached at all in Scripture. Even here, I personally don't think that the Bible has in mind one time of getting drunk. I'm not saying this to allow for one night of drunkenness. I'm just saying that a drunkard in the ancient world is surely not someone who gets drunk once but someone who is habitually drunk.
But that's really irrelevant. We are pretty well agreed across the denomination that Christians should not get drunk. It's a bad witness, it puts a person in a state where they are more susceptible to temptation, etc... "Strong drink is a mocker..."
Yet we should assume that all the biblical figures drank wine except when the Bible explicitly tells us otherwise. The Nazirites were just a small group within Israel. One of the things that distinguished them from the rest of Israel is that they did not drink. The implication is that most everyone else did. Yes it was more dilute than ours today, yes the water could use some purification, but it was alcoholic and you could get drunk off it.
Jesus distinguishes himself from John the Baptist as someone who drinks, while JB does not (JB came not drinking, you said he had a demon; I came drinking, you say I'm a drunkard). Jesus turned the water into alcoholic wine. Paul tells Timothy to drink a little wine for his stomach's sake, and so forth.
So there really is little debate on the truth issue. Alchohol is not prohibited in Scripture, only drunkenness.
Elephants in the Room
Some might be upset that the general board did not flat out OK drinking in the Australian church. Don't blame the board. If a proposal had been brought to let the Australian church find their own way on these sorts of things, it would have been approved. If even the briefest of studies had been done in preparation to present to them, it probably would have been approved. If that is sticking in anyone's craw, pull it out. Drinking was not the problem there.
Schism
I know the conservative wing of our church can be frustrating to the boomers and emergents out there. But that doesn't give anyone the right to be hateful or dismissive of them. They carried this ball for decades, there's a history here, and the Bible does command us to respect our parents. They are our parents on the level of principle, and God is not pleased when we throw them away, even long after we have inherited the power.
That doesn't necessarily mean that we don't change things. But it does mean that we are accountable for how we treat our elders. This is one of the major blind spots of the coming generation. I wonder if we will see a steady rise in hate crimes toward the elderly in the next few decades.
Another blind spot is submission when we don't agree. There is a time to work for change, maybe it is now. But these things are never just about truth. In fact, they're always more about people than truth. This is a mistake I could see both sides making. On the one side is the stubborn conservative who has so wrapped his/her faith around a particular cultural understanding s/he won't listen to what the Bible actually says. Then there is the stubborn progressive who would sink the whole ship in the name of truth. Both these types shouldn't be in leadership for their lack of wisdom.
Smoke Screens
There are a couple anti-drink smoke screens I might mention.
First, sometimes people split hairs over how much you would need to drink before you are drunk. Since you don't know, don't start.
This is a bizarre argument to me. For one, I think the Bible is really adressing the drunkard, the person who is continually drunk, what we would call an alcoholic or the older generation called a "wino." But one time drunk does not a drunkard make, and I can't imagine the biblical authors giving you anything but a strange look with this "is it two, is it three drinks." This argument seems a left over from our overactive introspection period.
I do think there are lots of good reasons never to get drunk. Do you think people sin more when they're sober or when they're drunk? Do you think a person's moral resolve, his or her restraint in saying a hateful or flirtatious word increase or decrease with each drink?
And as someone who did my doctorate in England, all the evangelical Christians I was around drank. They drank sherry before high meals, red and white wine with the meals and port after the meals. I can honestly say that I never saw a one of them I would consider drunk. The chaplain of the college was as holy as anyone I have ever met (yes, even among the entirely sanctified in the WC). He drank, always reasonalby. I can't think of any time when he was drunk.
Where to Go
First, the Wesleyan Church already allows alcohol for medicinal (or machine--ha!) purposes. Given the spate of studies showing that moderate drinking of red wine is good for our health, Wesleyans can technically already drink red wine moderately. Not sure I can make that argument for beer or other forms.
The worst thing would be if we split over something like this. Surely we wouldn't be that stupid. If this is really that big of an issue in our church and a resolution is going to come up, I hope the generals will commission a study.
The most important thing to me is our attitude. The biggest question in this debate for us Wesleyans is not what the Bible prohibits or allows on this issue. It's not the truth question. The most important question is always the attitude question. Can we change our current status and maintain the right attitude throughout the process? If we can't, then we have to ask how it helps the kingdom to change the rules. Does it help win more souls to Christ? Does it help the church mature in the faith?
If we can change the rules and maintain the Spirit of Christ in the process, then I'm with you. But if we don't care about anything but making it easier for us to do something that gives us pleasure and all else be damned because we're right and the Bible allows for what we want (don't even pretend that drinking is a biblical command and that you're fighting for God here!)... THAT has nothing to do with Christ.
And just some small changes in how we formulate membership and the issue disappears as a matter of the people attending our churches.
In my opinion, it would be a sad statement if our church had anything like a split over an issue like this one--a sad comment on both sides! God has not commanded us to drink or not to drink, but he has commanded us to be of one spirit. When the Episcopals and Methodists are divided over things like homosexuality among the clergy, we would prove to be petty Christians if we split over drinking!
If those who would stay would be the ones with the right attitude (not the ones who won--whichever way), I'd be more than happy for the divisive on both sides to leave.
The truth issue
Ironically, there is widespread agreement on what the Bible teaches on this issue, although the most conservative element in our church would still deny it. Drunkenness is not stomached at all in Scripture. Even here, I personally don't think that the Bible has in mind one time of getting drunk. I'm not saying this to allow for one night of drunkenness. I'm just saying that a drunkard in the ancient world is surely not someone who gets drunk once but someone who is habitually drunk.
But that's really irrelevant. We are pretty well agreed across the denomination that Christians should not get drunk. It's a bad witness, it puts a person in a state where they are more susceptible to temptation, etc... "Strong drink is a mocker..."
Yet we should assume that all the biblical figures drank wine except when the Bible explicitly tells us otherwise. The Nazirites were just a small group within Israel. One of the things that distinguished them from the rest of Israel is that they did not drink. The implication is that most everyone else did. Yes it was more dilute than ours today, yes the water could use some purification, but it was alcoholic and you could get drunk off it.
Jesus distinguishes himself from John the Baptist as someone who drinks, while JB does not (JB came not drinking, you said he had a demon; I came drinking, you say I'm a drunkard). Jesus turned the water into alcoholic wine. Paul tells Timothy to drink a little wine for his stomach's sake, and so forth.
So there really is little debate on the truth issue. Alchohol is not prohibited in Scripture, only drunkenness.
Elephants in the Room
Some might be upset that the general board did not flat out OK drinking in the Australian church. Don't blame the board. If a proposal had been brought to let the Australian church find their own way on these sorts of things, it would have been approved. If even the briefest of studies had been done in preparation to present to them, it probably would have been approved. If that is sticking in anyone's craw, pull it out. Drinking was not the problem there.
Schism
I know the conservative wing of our church can be frustrating to the boomers and emergents out there. But that doesn't give anyone the right to be hateful or dismissive of them. They carried this ball for decades, there's a history here, and the Bible does command us to respect our parents. They are our parents on the level of principle, and God is not pleased when we throw them away, even long after we have inherited the power.
That doesn't necessarily mean that we don't change things. But it does mean that we are accountable for how we treat our elders. This is one of the major blind spots of the coming generation. I wonder if we will see a steady rise in hate crimes toward the elderly in the next few decades.
Another blind spot is submission when we don't agree. There is a time to work for change, maybe it is now. But these things are never just about truth. In fact, they're always more about people than truth. This is a mistake I could see both sides making. On the one side is the stubborn conservative who has so wrapped his/her faith around a particular cultural understanding s/he won't listen to what the Bible actually says. Then there is the stubborn progressive who would sink the whole ship in the name of truth. Both these types shouldn't be in leadership for their lack of wisdom.
Smoke Screens
There are a couple anti-drink smoke screens I might mention.
First, sometimes people split hairs over how much you would need to drink before you are drunk. Since you don't know, don't start.
This is a bizarre argument to me. For one, I think the Bible is really adressing the drunkard, the person who is continually drunk, what we would call an alcoholic or the older generation called a "wino." But one time drunk does not a drunkard make, and I can't imagine the biblical authors giving you anything but a strange look with this "is it two, is it three drinks." This argument seems a left over from our overactive introspection period.
I do think there are lots of good reasons never to get drunk. Do you think people sin more when they're sober or when they're drunk? Do you think a person's moral resolve, his or her restraint in saying a hateful or flirtatious word increase or decrease with each drink?
And as someone who did my doctorate in England, all the evangelical Christians I was around drank. They drank sherry before high meals, red and white wine with the meals and port after the meals. I can honestly say that I never saw a one of them I would consider drunk. The chaplain of the college was as holy as anyone I have ever met (yes, even among the entirely sanctified in the WC). He drank, always reasonalby. I can't think of any time when he was drunk.
Where to Go
First, the Wesleyan Church already allows alcohol for medicinal (or machine--ha!) purposes. Given the spate of studies showing that moderate drinking of red wine is good for our health, Wesleyans can technically already drink red wine moderately. Not sure I can make that argument for beer or other forms.
The worst thing would be if we split over something like this. Surely we wouldn't be that stupid. If this is really that big of an issue in our church and a resolution is going to come up, I hope the generals will commission a study.
The most important thing to me is our attitude. The biggest question in this debate for us Wesleyans is not what the Bible prohibits or allows on this issue. It's not the truth question. The most important question is always the attitude question. Can we change our current status and maintain the right attitude throughout the process? If we can't, then we have to ask how it helps the kingdom to change the rules. Does it help win more souls to Christ? Does it help the church mature in the faith?
If we can change the rules and maintain the Spirit of Christ in the process, then I'm with you. But if we don't care about anything but making it easier for us to do something that gives us pleasure and all else be damned because we're right and the Bible allows for what we want (don't even pretend that drinking is a biblical command and that you're fighting for God here!)... THAT has nothing to do with Christ.
And just some small changes in how we formulate membership and the issue disappears as a matter of the people attending our churches.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
deNeff on Drinking This Morning
Steve deNeff spoke on the turning of water into wine this morning in church. His topic wasn't on drinking but since it was there he did make a quick aside.
His best comment to me this morning had to do with a common Wesleyan conversation you hear from time to time:
Person 1: "So Steve, if Jesus were here today, could he become a member of the Wesleyan Church, since he drank?
Steve: Absolutely!
Person 1: How?
Steve: Because if Jesus decided to be Wesleyan, he would submit to the practices of our community.
This question has a hidden premise that is unexamined and false, yet prevalent. We should be able to do whatever we want, especially if there isn't a definite right or wrong on the issue.
So if someone thinks a rule is stupid, they don't feel obligated to keep it. This is rampant in our homes and schools to where I fear what will happen when this generation is making the laws.
Do I break some rules of the various communities to which I belong? Do I ever break the speed limit? I would be a hypocrite if I said I didn't sometims treat myself as a higher authority.
The difference is that I'm willing to take the consequences. When I'm caught speeding--and I was speeding--I take the ticket as justice, as right.
Did Jesus need to be baptized? No. Then why did he do it? Because it showed his solidarity with the community of the repentant and cleansed being formed through John's baptism.
On the issue of homosexuality, I might just mention that the question of whether a person is born gay or not is irrelevant to the question of whether homosexual sex is appropriate or not. Both sides go at this one. Those who favor homosexual sex often assume that if a person is born a certain way, then God made them that way and must approve of them being that way. Many Christians then follow suit with the same assumption and argue vehemently for homosexuality being a choice.
But this discussion is a red herring. Christian theology teaches that the world, including people, are messed up. Christianity doesn't teach that if you are born with Turrets syndrome, that God made you to cuss uncontrollably. Christianity teaches that things like diabetes or heart disease are a part of a fallen world, not something God has micromanaged in every case. In this sense the Purpose Driven Life is off in its theology. It is unorthodox.
I don't mean to offend anyone who is homosexual by this line of thinking. I'm simply clarifying what the New Testament and Christian theology has always taught [in the light of Dave C's comment below, I'll add after the fact that there are some contemporary theologians and interpreters who disagree with this consensus of history]. The question of whether a person is born gay is a completely separate issue than the question of whether a person should have homosexual sex as a Christian.
So we return to the assumption that if a person has certain desires, it wouldn't be fair to keep them from expressing them. This would be the logic that would say, "If a person wants to drink and it's not absolutely wrong, it would be wrong to prohibit them from drinking." But some practices provide community identity and may not be universal. And there's no law that says that desires have to be gratified.
I didn't get married until I was 31. Given my understanding of Christian ethics, that means I could not have sex until I was 31. Just because I wanted to have sex did not mean that I had to be allowed to have sex. According to Christianity, sex is not a divine right and celibacy is a real option for anyone.
So kudos to Steve. God has given him great wisdom.
His best comment to me this morning had to do with a common Wesleyan conversation you hear from time to time:
Person 1: "So Steve, if Jesus were here today, could he become a member of the Wesleyan Church, since he drank?
Steve: Absolutely!
Person 1: How?
Steve: Because if Jesus decided to be Wesleyan, he would submit to the practices of our community.
This question has a hidden premise that is unexamined and false, yet prevalent. We should be able to do whatever we want, especially if there isn't a definite right or wrong on the issue.
So if someone thinks a rule is stupid, they don't feel obligated to keep it. This is rampant in our homes and schools to where I fear what will happen when this generation is making the laws.
Do I break some rules of the various communities to which I belong? Do I ever break the speed limit? I would be a hypocrite if I said I didn't sometims treat myself as a higher authority.
The difference is that I'm willing to take the consequences. When I'm caught speeding--and I was speeding--I take the ticket as justice, as right.
Did Jesus need to be baptized? No. Then why did he do it? Because it showed his solidarity with the community of the repentant and cleansed being formed through John's baptism.
On the issue of homosexuality, I might just mention that the question of whether a person is born gay or not is irrelevant to the question of whether homosexual sex is appropriate or not. Both sides go at this one. Those who favor homosexual sex often assume that if a person is born a certain way, then God made them that way and must approve of them being that way. Many Christians then follow suit with the same assumption and argue vehemently for homosexuality being a choice.
But this discussion is a red herring. Christian theology teaches that the world, including people, are messed up. Christianity doesn't teach that if you are born with Turrets syndrome, that God made you to cuss uncontrollably. Christianity teaches that things like diabetes or heart disease are a part of a fallen world, not something God has micromanaged in every case. In this sense the Purpose Driven Life is off in its theology. It is unorthodox.
I don't mean to offend anyone who is homosexual by this line of thinking. I'm simply clarifying what the New Testament and Christian theology has always taught [in the light of Dave C's comment below, I'll add after the fact that there are some contemporary theologians and interpreters who disagree with this consensus of history]. The question of whether a person is born gay is a completely separate issue than the question of whether a person should have homosexual sex as a Christian.
So we return to the assumption that if a person has certain desires, it wouldn't be fair to keep them from expressing them. This would be the logic that would say, "If a person wants to drink and it's not absolutely wrong, it would be wrong to prohibit them from drinking." But some practices provide community identity and may not be universal. And there's no law that says that desires have to be gratified.
I didn't get married until I was 31. Given my understanding of Christian ethics, that means I could not have sex until I was 31. Just because I wanted to have sex did not mean that I had to be allowed to have sex. According to Christianity, sex is not a divine right and celibacy is a real option for anyone.
So kudos to Steve. God has given him great wisdom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
