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.

38 comments:

theajthomas said...

I think the main problem with our current stand on drinking has to do with how it impacts our moral stand. I think it can be a bit confounding to the world around us when we are against one thing because the Bible clearly says so yet we are against another thing simply because we think it’s a good idea. One might even argue that it points to a quietly held belief that the moral code of scripture is inadequate and requires supplementation. Others would say it’s not about supplementing but about making it culturally relevant. Many of those people would believe that North American culture is basically that same now as it was around prohibition. I’d rather see us draw a line at what we understand the Bible to say and then hold it fast. I have no real interest in alcohol and can’t picture myself as a drinker even if the membership commitments did change but it bugs me to see people feel like they are somehow second class in our congregations because they enjoy a bear with their pizza. To which the response is “if they are not willing to give up alcohol for Covenant Membership than they must not want it very bad and probably aren’t even that committed to Christ.” I know I have said that. But what if someone said we had to give up TV or the Internet (which hold as much or more potential danger for the average person) or else we would be removed from membership – would we? I’d like to see it changed but I’d like to see it done respectfully and humbly and without pointing fingers. Our tee-totaling stance is not a scandal, a sin, or a tragedy; it’s just something that needs to be changed because the cultural (as opposed to Biblical) reasons for it have changed.

Bill Barnwell said...

Ken, this is a good and balanced post. A few observations:

1. My denomination is very similar to yours. In my experience here, and with Christians from sister denominations, it has hardly been the temperate drinking crowd that has had the bad attitude (for the most part). It has not been the couple who enjoys a glad of red wine with their meal who have been the most dogmatic here. It has been the opposite. Those who totally abstain generally do think of themselves as morally superior and are more likely to look down on Christians who consume alcohol in moderate quantities. This is of course a generalization, but it's because I've found it to be generally true.

2. You are right on when you say that this is a ridiculous issue for a church or denomination to split over. I've heard many stories of churches, denominations, Bible colleges, etc splitting over this very issue. Most Christians I know who drink in moderation do not care at all if people choose to completely abstain. I don't know of any social drinkers who are demanding that other traditionalist Christians have the occasional beer or glass of wine. I do know though, of hordes of traditionalist Christians who demand that others stop drinking in moderation, lest they cannot join their churches, serve in leadership, or gain their moral approval. Who then is laying the bigger burden? And is it right to make people submit to rules based on faulty premises (the wine was grape juice, it’s always a bad witness to drink in moderation, some kind of harm will always happen if one chooses to, etc)? Would not a better policy be for both sides to respect one another and leave it to ones conscience, instructions that Scriptures actually do give us? Why in this debate of preferences does either side need to anathemize the other?

3. Perhaps I'm biased because I'm younger and take the opposing view from the mainstream one in our circles, but I don't think the more "liberal" crowd from our heritage is generally trying to goad or belittle the traditionalists. There are some traditionalists who refuse to even have a dialogue on this issue and/or resort to extremely unconvincing arguments about "the original Greek" or whatnot to prove their point. In many minds, this is a settled issue, about as black and white as the divinity of Christ. I don’t see this as a rebellious attitude on our parts, or a lack of respect for authority and traditions, but rather just seeking out the best interpretation and application of this particular issue. Sometimes authority and tradition gets it wrong. Perhaps us naysayers are getting it wrong, but we at the very least present a plausible case that deserves a hearing in our denominations.

4. Furthermore, if there is a standard or covenantal burden being laid upon people that some of us view as excessive, shouldn't we argue for an eventual paradigm shift, or at the very least tolerance (and I say this as one, who in practice, rarely if ever takes a sip!)? If the Biblical argument falls short that “it was just grape juice”, which you acknowledge, then we are left with arguments from modern cultural applications. We have to say "Temperate drinking was OK then, but it's never OK now." And in fairness, I think there are many contemporary examples where this would be the case. But you have to prove this in each and every case, and there are plenty of circumstances where that wouldn't apply as I pointed out in the earlier posting. In such cases, there would be no harm done to ones health, no bad Christian witness, or any other external harm that I can think of.

Those who want to totally abstain today have every right to do so. It's a safeguard against any temptation in the area. But as AJ points out, I could say the same thing about computers. If I never used the computer I'd never have to worry about pornography. However, we tend to be discerning enough to say that not everyone who uses computers will struggle with pornography. The assumption of the old guard is that everyone who drinks in moderation risks becoming a drunk or all other sorts of bad things happening. Is that really the best and most honest way to look at things? Finally, I'd second an earlier commenter from the last post who said that the only people who immediately associate drinking with getting smashed are high school/college kids and fundamentalist/holiness Christians.

Thanks again for opening the door for this discussion, Ken.

Jeffrey Crawford said...

I still think, once again, that drinking is an extraneous issue. I definitely agree with Ken that it is no issue to split over. My very frank opinion is that if you know that the Wesleyan Church officially calls for no drinking, then as a sign of submission to that stand, you don't drink, end of discussion.
It's more about submission to authority than about any secondary issue. We can put any action into the semantic construct of drinking if we want to. Whether it is sex, computers, or video games, I believe this is an issue about autonomy versus submission. As a culture, Americans are so prone to view issues through the lens of entitlement rather than through community. I'm not sure how alcohol consumption and allowance would better the church. For that reason alone, I can see no reason for even carrying the conversation forward.
I truly don't believe that this is a cultural concession issue either. Alcohol has not suddenly become better, only more tolerated.
One personal example and I'm done. My wife and I would have liked to have had dancing at our wedding reception. However, we were married at a Wesleyan church by three uncles who are Wesleyan ministers. My grandparents journeyed long distances, along with other family members, who I know are and were not accepting of dancing. Here's the question then...
Should we have had a dance anyway, because we wanted it and didn't have a problem with it, or should we have honored the stance of other family members by not offending them, while still receiving their presents and most importantly, attendance at our wedding?

Matt Guthrie said...

This issue was discussed in light of the coming membership debate at a recent district gathering of pastors. One of the phrases used was, "Some feel this could split the denomination." I sincerely hope not. Regardless of the outcome, is this an issue that is on the level of slavery that a schism would result? I hope both sides are more mature than that, especially in light of the clear truth that the Bible does not forbid consumption of alcoholic beverages.

If forced to vote today on the issue, I'm not sure how I would vote. I probably lean towards keeping the admonition against consumption. But I think that it should be an American "rule" only. Let the other countries determine what is best in their geopolitical-sociological-spiritual context. Why are we making decisions for the Australians?

I say keep it the way it is because of our history. In our country, once slavery was outlawed, the next cause taken up was temperance. We have long, deep roots in that movement. Despite all the rhetoric by people advocating more freedom, the prevailing understanding of even the average non-churched person is that Christians, at least conservative ones, do not drink. I many times equate it with eating meat sacrificed to idols. As a Wesleyan pastor, my glass of wine would be a bigger stumbling block to the average non-Christian than it would be a help. I also live in the South, but there are a lot them dadgum Yankees moving in where I am too ;-)

IMHO, I don't think the real issue is to drink or not to drink. I don't think it is a membership debate cleverly disguised. I don't think it is a debate of what it means to be a Christian vs. what it means to be member of TWC. I think we are living in the days where a generation has grown up, not knowing the what real holiness is because of all the overcorrection against the legalism that so oft characterized our church.

As Drury put it several years ago, the holiness movement is dead. We are a church without identity and direction. We have a wonderful heritage, but we don't know what to do with it. There is a real hunger out there as people, young and old alike, are seeking the power of that movement without its trappings. It's like we are trying to erect a building with no foundation.

A lot of folks praised The Gathering and applauded Anthony Graham's message on the urgency of holiness. Every pastor I meet says they desperately want to see holiness take hold of their people. The problem is there seems to no contemporary understanding or formulation that is true to the doctrine without being so radically different from the traditional wording and rendering that I think we begin to doubt if haven't abandoned the doctrine.

I'll stop ranting because this is a sidebar probably not related to the original post. At least not directly.

Bill Barnwell said...

Matt, I think it is worth debating whether true holiness = never ever having a drink. We assume that and are taught that, but is temperate drinking REALLY an impediment to holiness? Again, it wasn't necessarily so in Biblical times and it isn't necessarily so today if I am applying things correctly.

Second, Jeffery, the "end of the discussion" line can only go so far. It's one thing to blatantly disregard your church's teaching in your life practice. It's quite another to raise the issue for discussion and debate as your members and members of my denomination have the right to do. Especially if the doctrine itself is based on faulty presuppositions! Members have a responsibility to submit, but leaders also have a responsibility not to lay unnecessary burdens on their members and not to exclude people from membership for actions that are not sinful. To just say "end of discussion" and not question whether the discussion itself is flawed is a bit problematic on a number of levels.

Matt Guthrie said...

Bill,

I'm not saying we shouldn't debate it. I don't believe that drinking excludes you from holiness. I am saying the debate is not about what we say it is.

If, when the debate is over and the ballots are counted, we reverse our denominational stance on drinking, how will we word our statement? Will the church itself say, "Sorry - we got it wrong all those years. It's not as bad the ordeal with Galileo and Copernicus, but we misread this one." Or will it say, "We banned it one time because it was a good idea. Cultural norms have changed and so we have adapted. However, some things aren't adaptable and here there are . . ." Or will it just delete the paragraph and hope nobody notices?

On the other hand, if it stays the way it is, how much denominational loyalty will those in disagreement maintain? Is this a Martin Luther-sized issue? Is this an Orange Scott-Luther Lee sized issue? (For non-Wesleyans, Scott and Lee left the Methodist Church to form the Wesleyan Methodist Connection over slavery)?

I'm not hearing a lot of good arguments for changing things, despite my sympathies for the positions of those wanting to change. I think, as I've already posted, we need to dig deeper and find out what, if anything, is really wrong with our system.

Bill Barnwell said...

Matt, as far as I've been able to see, the only arguments for keeping things the way they are come down to "It's a bad witness." This is hardly always the case. We are just assuming it's always or usually a bad witness. It's only half the Protestant movement which considers it a bad witness and has ingrained in the larger culture the idea that good Christians oppose temperate drinking.Furthermore, the argument simply doesn't work that moderate drinking is everywhere and always a detriment to ones moral character or witness.

To make the kind of absolute statement many traditionalists want to make, you have to show that it is indeed wrong or questionable in every given circumstance. Nobody can do that, and if that's the case, why not leave some room for those who are responsible and not troubled by temperate drinking? I'm much more concerned about laying unnecessary burdens on people than I am our denominations having to say "Maybe we went a bit overboard in the past with our opposition to moderate drinking."

Jeffrey Crawford said...

Bill,
I agree with your premise of democracy in action. No doubt. However, if I must go back to the issue of alcohol, the harmlessness or non-sinfulness is certainly open for conjecture. I, for one, can't see the Wesleyan Church changing its stance on the issue with the current generation of leadership and the recognition that the tithing base of the church - the Builder and Boomer generation -being less than enthusiastic about the venture. My thought on this is that my personal freedom can't come at the expense of forcing lifelong members out of their own church so that I can feel liberty to drink a glass of wine. Once again, I feel like the wine is a window dressing for a larger issue.
Secondly, the idea of allowing a concession based on social acceptability is foolhardy at best. I could make the same argument for divorce, homosexuality, adultery and a host of other issues that are "acceptable" within many social circles. For me, it's not an issue of moral superiority, as I don't feel that over someone else who chooses to indulge in that activity. I recognize that my sin will convict me in the eyes of the Lord as well, without the atonement of Christ. My stance on the issue is close to Matt's on this. Drinking is a secondary issue. Should it receive debate? Without a doubt. That is the mark of a healthy organization ... and blog.
I don't really agree with the toleration angle on this issue, Bill. To say that drinkers are more tolerant isn't necessarily in relationship for allowing drinking. In some cases, I believe a fair amount of justifying behavior is in practice. Might I just say, at the risk of being renounced, I think the Wesleyan Church is a very strange entity, that I myself am at times at odds with. The choice then remains for me, do I stay a part of it, or do I join another church where such discussion don't occur or have already. I'm still praying on that one, by the way.
I guess I'm saying that I haven't heard any evidence to make me think that the church is laying "an unnecessary burden" on me by saying no to drinking.

::athada:: said...

My grandparents-in-law were attending Kentwood Community (Wesleyan) Church, but didn't stay solely because of the prohibition to drinking. They, being West Michigan Dutch, drank very often and always in moderation.

Bill Barnwell said...

Jeffery, I'm not making an argument based solely on social acceptability. I'm making it on Scripture, its application, and just plain common sense that not every act of taking a drink is sinful or a bad witness. To make that claim you have to make the Scriptures say something they don't and universalize cultural applications. My point on toleration was that social drinkers are not trying to get every other Christian to be like them and drink. However, those who take the position of a complete ban, they insist everyone be just like them. I have no problem with people never drinking. I do have a problem with telling everyone else that they never can if they aren't breaking any Biblical rules.

Again, if you can't make a Biblical argument against temperate drinking, and the modern cultural arguments against it don't always work, then why in the world would we want to keep people out of leadership and our church membership roles who take a more nuanced view that the Scriptures allow? And that right there is the heavy burden. No, it's not a life or death issue, but it is in my opinion, going overboard to restrict people in our churches for doing non-morally offensive things in their own lives that do not affect anybody else.

Anonymous said...

First off... My name is Steve McVey. I don't blog often.
I am the pastor of a Wesleyan church in rural Kansas. We are not a mega church that is for sure.
As I listen to this discussion I can't help but wonder if we are underestimating the level of frustration many of us have on this issue. We deal regularly with good God-fearing people who are willing to do anything the Bible says, but who will not become members and leaders because of these man-made rules.
For me this is not some intellectual discourse. This is hurting my church’s potential and taking away from my church’s ability to build the Kingdom. It is an albatross around our neck.
Consider the comments made by athada above. That happens regularly or many of us pastors.
Consider the real-life choices I have to make because of these non-Biblical standards. I either have so say goodbye to people who are fully-devoted followers of Christ, people who are willing to give of their time and resources to the body of Christ, because my denomination has made an unbiblical demand. Or I to tell these fully-devoted followers that they can be members, make the commitment, and we will just look the other way. What am I teaching them when I do that?
I am not a big fan of schism, however, it sure seems to me that The Wesleyan Church needs to address this issue by General Conference 2008. There has to be some way of taking a stand on drunkenness without shutting the door to those who socially drink.
My guess would be that no matter what happens at GC2008, there will be a falling away. If a compromise is reached that opens that door, there will be those who leave over it. If that door is not opened, there will be those who leave over it.
This is why leadership on this is very important. If the Generals do not get a compromise solution out in front of all of us soon, and start vigorously explaining it to those who see this as compromise, The Wesleyan Church is going to take a hit.

Rob Paterson said...

Just a quick two cents...

This is not an issue because our pastors and people want to drink per se. Ministers and churches who have no interest in drinking will not be impacted if things change nor will they be expected to drink or stock alcohol.

Much like McVey said this is an issue in churches that are growing and reaching their communities. Go into any church that is growing quickly and reaching non-christians or even people who grew up most denominations. Go into any church plant, that is filled with people that are new to church and faith. These places...our places are absolutely packed with people who drink! They simply don't understand why they cannot become covenant members or serve in various leadership positions because of a lack of compliance to a non-biblical standard.

This issue is about whether we are more interested in appeasing the lifers or reaching the lost. I think (especially when there is no biblical reason not to) we ought to (in as thoughful a manner as possible) reach the lost and empower churches that are doing so.

If you are not reaching those people and have a church of people who don't drink...nothing will change!

CG-EM-RP

Anonymous said...

I am not a Wesleyan but I am a Nazarene and the more I thought about this the more I was confused about our position as well. But I will not attach my name to these feelings for now. If its not hurting anyone else and what you are doing is not wrong then who cares? Let each decide for themselves what they want to do. If somebody wants to have an occassional drink at a restaraunt then thats their business. Nobody has to join them if they don't want to.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

I am speaking as an "outsider" of the Wesleyan Church tradition, so I may be "off" in my understanding, but...I have understood faith to be about God and not about cultural issues. But, I also wholeheartedly agree with Ken that cultural issues are about the person, because how we are/were raised does enter into our understanding of faith. Questions arise when there is a consistant power struggle between "cultures". When and how do the two make "peace"? Is there a way to bridge the gap of understanding? But, what if the older generation does not want to hear because of identifying their faith too strongly with cultural issues? The Scriptures say that the Kingdom is not in eating and drinking....but it also says to consider one another...Unless we have a "state church" mentality, then, there is freedom of conscience to worship God as our cultural identification allows. As you said Ken, it is not about truth but about people. It is a character issue. Truth without love is abusive, so I agree with you. It then becomes a question whether one believes in love or not...and will it overcome?

SteveMcVey said...

There is one more thing I want to mention when it comes to the frustration that is out there. The 2006 statistical report lists 1719 Wesleyan churches in North America. 861 of those churches did not report even one baptism. That’s 50%!!! Those stats are sobering.
We only have 199 churches averaging over 200 in weekly worship.
The perception that some are starting to get is that there are those in The Wesleyan Church who are not engaging the culture in effective ways. The perception is that these churches/leaders are the ones resisting a change in membership requirements.
Perception is not always reality, and I am sure there are a few exceptions to any trend.
This perception, right or wrong, brings a difficult element to the discussion.
Our whole aim is to engage the culture and make disciples, a difficult job. We want to remove any barrier that would stop us from accomplishing this mission, but our motives are reduced to a desire have a beer. This adds to the frustration.

Ben Robinson said...

Honestly, I think it's sad that Christians would be viewed as "those people who don't drink." The reality that this is sometimes a stereotype reflects the extent to which abstaining from drinking has taken an inappropriate place. I would much rather non-believers view Christians as "those people who believe in Jesus Christ as God and Savior; those people who love one another; those people who love us; those people who proclaim a message of hope; those people who make peace."

If Wesleyans are concerned about a lack of identity, perhaps we should stop constructing our identity out of these ancillary principles (e.g. abstaining from drink, dance, cards, etc.), and instead construct an identity out of the Gospel.

Bill Barnwell said...

I think Romans 14 is a much better guide than the absolutist positions some try to take on this issue:

"Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgement on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him...He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God, and who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God."

We have here evidence that not everything is in absolutes and those who disagree on areas of preference should not be shouting each other down. For modern application, I don't think its inappropriate to put alcohol in the above categories, especially if we recognize that the wine in Bible times wasn't just "grape juice" and that drinking was not condemened outright.

"Therefore let us stop passing judgement on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love...Do not allow what you consider to be good spoken of as evil...All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything else that will cause your brother to fail."

Again, we see room for disagreement. But the teetoaler takes things too far when he or she interprets words like "distressed," "stumble" or "fail" to mean "You doing something I don't agree with." The context here is not "Don't socially drink with like-minded people because it might aggravate other subsets of Christians who don't believe you have the right to live your own life this way--even when they aren't around." The context is more like, "Don't eat or drink something around somebody who believes it to be sin and may follow your lead and then in their minds sin." Or a better modern application, "Don't have a beer in front of a recovering alcoholic who by your actions may certainly sin." Certainly it carries the application as well of "Don't do something around somebody if you know it would majorly offend them." This is quite different from trying to control people's behavior from afar, from things that do not affect you, and are indeed not even sinful!

I also always find it interesting that generally speaking teetoalers think their sensibilities are the only ones that matter. It's always those rebellious and pesky social drinkers who are rude and causing all the division. Again, it isn't the temperate social drinkers who are pushing for membership requirements in their churches calling on everyone to have the same views on alcohol as they do lest they can't join the church. It isn't temperate social drinkers who are breathing down others' throats telling them they MUST consume a drink here and there. It's the opposite. I've never met a Christian social drinker who was offended at other Christians from not having an occassional glass of wine like they do. They get offended because their spirituality is questioned, their motives are questioned, and they are restricted in a number of church and denominational settings because they happen to have a different position on temperate drinking.

Wouldn't it be better for everyone to just cut each other some slack and stop therir own making personal preferences gospel truth for other people who do not have the same preferences on areas the Scriptures themselves allow diversity?

Anonymous said...

I'm 30. So call me buster, emergent, whatever. I submit to the denomination. However, I really disagree with our "stance". One main reason is that we leave behind the Wesleyan quadralateral to get there (what ever happened to beginning and ending with scripture?).

In any event, I greatly appreciate the lives livedand given for Christ within the WC over the decades. However, I also feel that this is an issue who's time has come to pass...

As you state, drinking is not sin, and alchohol is not satan's poison. Although I know some Wesleyans who would fight you tooth and nail over both.

I do not see how removing the alchohol, etc from the membership requirements is advocating alchoholism...I do see often how they keep growing Christians who exemplify holy living in their lives from being able to be a part of our WC family...

To me, it is an unecessary standard based on man's tradition. ANd so I would liek to see it removed.

Until then, I will continue to practice and advise both members and nonmembers alike that abstinence is an acceptabel standard in regards to alchohol.

I will choose to forgoe my freedom to drink, so as to not cause my weaker Wesleyan brothers and sisters to stumble.

Evan NUtter
Pastor,
Faith Wesleyan Church
Fruitland, MD

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Beginning and ending with Scripture? I had heard something similar in Dr. Glenn Martin's class, but it was "beginning and ending with "God""...Now, is Scripture God or a means to understand God? Even if you hold to the value of Scripture, you must agree that we come to understand Scripture and our faith within our own cultural values, ideals, and personal "needs"...The imagery in Scripture is not meant to be taken literally. So, in understanding our faith, we must first ask the question as to how we understand God....For instance, my Pastor Steve DeNeff used the image of "holy nation" during one of his sermon seris....I had understood my faith and my theology on the imagery of "family". The difference is profound...and the resulting confusion in understanding the WC in excluding members from "full fellowship"....It has taken me to unknown destinations in my faith journey that has left me with quesions that still need to be resolved. I believe John Wesley himself understood the imagery of family ... But, with postmodernity, and faith needing definition...that is my quandry and my quest...to understand my faith, so that I will not leave my faith. I cannot live without a reason....it brings me to abandonment when crisis occurs. So, for those of you out there that seek to understand those like me, an "outsider" (which, by the way, has horrible connotations to me, as far as my family of origin...)...just so you'll know and understand what you do when you make those distinctions...

Ken Schenck said...

I agree that in our day and age abstinence is not a good criterion to base a denominational identity on. On the other hand, church identities don't form around universal Christian cores. Identities form in distinction. Groups that have called themselves "the group" (Catholics, Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Christian Church, Church of God, Anderson) always sneak in distinctions of one sort or another. Common ground never can constitute identity (unless it is common ground in distinction from others who don't share it :-)

So denominations form around particular interpretations of the gospel and, often, around completely arbitrary social, geographic, etc. factors.

I personally believe that it is appropriate for we "holiness" groups to pursue mergers with the other holiness groups to any extent possible. I accept that sometimes it's just better to fly parallel. But in a perfect world, conservative Methodists, Free Methodists, Nazarenes, etc... would all merge.

But I agree with Ben and others that abstinence is a poor criterion to be anywhere on the "A" list of identity forming characteristics.

Jeffrey Crawford said...

Bill,
Forgive me, I'm not trying to antagonize here... But, if we don't find a Biblical against drinking, do we ever find a clear and unequivocal Biblical mandate FOR it? There is a large amount of gray, and the Wesleyan Church has chosen to make it black and white. That's there choice. If someone takes a morally superior stance - and this is by no means a Wesleyan standard, nor is it restricted to morality, the same concepts could apply to theology, as in a Wesleyan-Arminian versus Calvinism, with both sides claiming superiority at times... That doesn't make it right, only more likely to be the nature of certain individuals who are more than likely compensating for some deficiency somehow...anyway, back on topic here...
Drinking seems to have been a socially acceptable issue for 1st century Jews, but that in and of itself doesn't make it right for our culture now. Case in point, we are told Biblically, to care for widows and the elderly. However, we choose to define that in many cases by putting the elderly in "retirement villages" and nursing homes when they become too much of a burden. That seems to be fine and unavailable for debate. Yet, for 1st century Jews, this action would have been UNTHINKABLE.
Meanwhile, we worry about people walking away from our churches because they want to pop open a cork.
Priorities are askew here. The same people who drank at mealtimes in the Bible were the same people who kept their parents in their homes and their women quiet. Does that mean we should follow their examples here, too?
I'm not trying to stir up things, I'm bringing this out as something to think about whenever we choose to try to examine a random verse for justification about something that isn't overtly discussed Biblically, that being drinking in moderation.
Personally, it's not a real issue to me, but it is to the Wesleyan Church, so as long as I am a Wesleyan that is my stance as well. This is what being a part of an organization is all about. As part of an organization, I do have the right to debate an issue, but I must always have the best interest of the group in mind over my own. I haven't heard that yet.
I agree with the concept of people taking a position of superiority over moral stances, however, moral stances are in place for a reason. This is particularly true in the Wesleyan Church, which if you aren't one, you don't truly understand the situation. Frankly, having not been one my whole life, I think many things are peculiar. I believe for instance, that the concept of entire sanctification via a "pathway", particularly a short pathway is STRANGE. However, if I am a part of the Wesleyan Church, by choice, then I must choose to get in line with that, or I should then look elsewhere. I just may do that.

Bill Barnwell said...

There's no "mandate" either way, that's the point. And no, I would not put this on par with the Calvinism/"Arminianism" debate. What you have there is two mutually exclusive positions and each position has very strong connotations regarding how God deals with people. Limited Atonement is true or it isn't. It can't be both true and untrue at the same time. Alcohol, however, when handled responsibly appears to be a matter of lifestyle preference where one could go either way, as I believe the Scriptures and modern application allow. You further say,

"Drinking seems to have been a socially acceptable issue for 1st century Jews, but that in and of itself doesn't make it right for our culture now."

I feel like a broken record here. Let me repeat, one simply cannot universalize the cultural arguments against drinking. The only people who automatically associate non-drunken temporate drinking with sin are fundamentalist/traditional holiness Protestants. And that's only because of their presuppositions.I used to believe the same way. I looked at the arguments more critically and changed my position. At any rate, you cannot say it's "always" a bad cultural witness. In certain cases it is, in other cases it is not. There's no way you can show how in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE or even the majority for that matter that we are doing the cultural a disservice if we allow a Christian to have an occassional glass of wine in the privacy of his own home or with other like minded people.

Other Wesleyans believe, unlike you, that the current policy is not beneficial. Again, there is no clear knock down argument over whose personal preferences should reign supreme. Why then try to enforce one over the other, when the Scriptures already give us the teaching of tolerance in certain matters? I'm also a bit perplexed at your linking this issue with nursing homes. I think you're stretching things here. Yes, cultural applications and arguments are relevant in each of those issues but they are not all the same (the logic doesn't hold that, "Since first century Christians had an incomplete view of the social status of women and slaves, they must have had an incomplete view on the evils of alcohol") and deserve separate treatment.

"This is particularly true in the Wesleyan Church, which if you aren't one, you don't truly understand the situation."

My Wesleyan/holiness heritage denomination holds pretty much the same stand on social drinking.

"However, if I am a part of the Wesleyan Church, by choice, then I must choose to get in line with that, or I should then look elsewhere. I just may do that."

Since when aren't rank and file members as well as leaders not allowed to question the status quo in a given denomination or any other structure? The way you word things implies that things can't and basically shouldn't ever change when it comes to any issue. Are we that concerned of what will happen if our denominations admit their current policies are not infallible?

SteveMcVey said...

Jeffrey Crawford,
You mentioned that you had not heard anyone mention the good of the organization in this blog. With this many responses, you might have missed what I said earlier.
I said that the General Supts need to get behind a proposal that would open the door to social drinking, while taking a firm stand on drunkenness. They should then begin actively explaining it to those who would see such a move as compromise.
My reasoning is that General Conference 2008 is going to be a watershed moment for many. If the door is opened or left shut in a poor manner, the Wesleyan Church will take a hit.
Clear leadership is needed now. My prayer is that leadership will arise soon in spite of our leadership be committee approach.
A car with three steering wheels is hard to drive.

Ken Schenck said...

Some discussion has raised the possibility that some are now viewing the Wesleyans on this issue in similar terms to where we were on, say, wedding rings or women cutting their hair forty years ago. It would then be an issue where we didn't want to look stupid and weird to the world and other churches over something.

A couple of interesting differences between now and then. First, women not adorning with jewelry and not cutting their hair short actually has more of a biblical basis than abstinence does. On the other hand, alcohol has much greater potential to lead to sins of various kinds than wearing jewelry does.

But is this a "we don't like looking stupid" issue? I doubt the WC would make an absolute prohibition on alcohol if we were inventing the church from scratch today and could somehow separate ourselves from our history and culture on this topic. So are some of those whose voices are so strong ashamed in the face of "transfer growth" from other churches who mock us for having this position? Is it as much because it makes us feel stupid as because we have some strong desire to drink?

How would someone formulate an argument for change along these lines positively? Maybe one would say something like this. There were probably good reasons for people of our historic class to fight for temperance and abstinence in the late 1800's and 1900's. But we largely retain our stance on this issue as a historical artifact, a tradition that we would not put in place if we were inventing the church today. As it stands today, it is largely in our polity because of false interpretation, because our fathers and mothers reinterpreted the biblical text to mean grape juice instead of real wine.

In short, although we have admitted to ourselves that our fathers and mothers were wrong on their exegesis, we have kept their position strictly for tradition's sake. As such it serves no positive purpose. At best it is a curiousity to newcomers. At worse it is an unnecessary obstacle. What we should be preaching in this area is moderation in all areas of life--eating, drinking, and all forms of human pleasure.

What do you think of this as an argument? I am struck by Jeff's comments--he has strongly defended the WC's right to prohibit alcohol... and then noted that he will probably end up a Methodist.

Anonymous said...

Not too many decades ago, the debate was over jewelry, television, bobbed hair, etc. How far down the slippery slope will we go?

Bill Barnwell said...

I find myself mostly agreeing with your hypothetical argument, though in fairness many contemporary holders of the traditional view don't hold it just for traditions sake and sloppy exegesis (though many others do!). They sincerely think that total abstinence is the most Christ centered policy for today. They might admit that the wine "really was fermented" back then but when it comes down to it, many feel anything fermented, no matter how moderate the quantity, really isn't God's best. I'm also finding that people who have so emotionally held to the traditional position have a very hard time looking objectively at the issue, or considering what you have outlined above.

Rob Paterson said...

Very interesting. I am wondering how many at HQ would agree with your very logical conclusion?!?!



"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."

Pastor Rod said...

I am in Italy right now, so I have limited Internet access. I know I am coming to this discussion late, and I don't have enough time to carefully read all the comments.

AJ brings up a very important point that I think is completely overlooked in this issue.

When we take a position that is not biblical and that grew out of a different culture, WE WEAKEN THE CALL TO TRUE HOLINESS.

This is not a "slippery slope" argument!

If we are serious about holiness, we will change our entire attitude about membership commitments. We will start calling people to seriously follow Jesus. We will quit drawing lines in the sand defining what holy living looks like. We will be serious about modeling the fruit of the Spirit.

The what's-good-for-the-denomination argument is a significant point. Of course, any organization has the right to make any rules it wants. Any organization also has the right to render itself irrelevant.

But I think the "confusion" or "distraction" argument is much more important. As long as we have membership rules about smoking and drinking, we are not serious about holiness. We are protecting something, but it is not a commitment to costly discipleship.

While the "drinking issue" might not be worth dividing over, the blind commitment to tradition might be. (Refer to Jesus' attitude towards the Pharisees' rules about Sabbath keeping.)

I'm sure that this comment sounds more strident than I intended, so I have to apoligize in advance. I'm not planning to organize a revolt, but I'm tired of all the rationalizations for a position that any disinterested observer whould agree should have been changed a long time ago.

Rod

Ken Schenck said...

I like your thoughts, Rod. And there's an unwritten rule that we don't argue with anyone posting from Italy. :-)

Anonymous said...

why is the Wesleyan church so concerned about today's culture? It is a horrible idea to allow drinking for members. Why does a person have to drink? Remember the Bible does say to abstain from the very appearance of evil.Would you rather influence the younger generation for drink or against? Just because you are moderate doesn't mean that everyone else will be.You are basically saying open the door to something that has the potential to harm more people than to help your outreach. Believe it or not the world wants to see people actually live their beliefs. How disapointing for someone looking on. I speak from personal experience. My chilren were shocked to be a someone's house to see the leaders in a church small group Bilble study drinking.They have no respect for those leaders. Quit trying to excuse your behavior!You influence may make an alcoholic out of someone!!Jesus would never condone somehing that would make a mockery and ruin of families. That one scripture reference is trying to show the impotance of marriage and if you take the time to study it,you will learn that in that day the alcohol content was very diluted. Drukeness was absolutely prohited even for a wedding celebration! The Bible is very clear about strong drink. why don't you look up all the scriptures concerning drink and be objective then. Leave the aalcohol out of the church!!!!

Anonymous said...

I am definately thrilled I got out of the Wesleyan Church. It is sad to think that a denomination who has held such strong views is slowly shifting to a world view so they can increase memebership. Sadly this has become the norm it seems for many churches now a days. As long as people are happy that seems to be the whole issue. No doubt it was the cultural norm in the bible to drink watered down wine (which I do believe was nothing more than really strong vinegar). Today's cultural norm seems to be "if it feels good, do it". I am not in agreement with social drinking as I have been one of those people who's stand was ruined when I simply enjoyed a beer at a banquet. That one simple unimportant thing (to me) undid more months of sharing Christ's love than anything else I could have done. It is those outside the church that look on at us that need to be of our major concern and our love and desire for them to come to know Christ. Those inside the church who have their feelings in a knot becasue of this debate obviously do not see the bigger picture at stake here. Sadly the church (as a whole) seems to want to become so world relvant that they are becoming irrelevant. I don't mean to step on toes so I do apologize. I don't think allowing social drinking will help with the numbers, I think holiness in the lives of those leading and a heart to be what God has called us to be...will.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Is very sad. We have "wesleyan" corrupt leaders in latinoamerica. They are really politicians , more interested in prestige and money tha the bible. They receive money from pederast and thief pastors, just to make sure they keep doing those things.
Alcohol? is the least of the problems. The wesleyan church , has lost control of its so call "missionary arm" (global partners). What can be do? What the new testament call for. Form a new "Thrue Wesleyan Church" . And make those responsable for those acts to pay for them, the direct ones , and the accesories.

Anonymous said...

paul gave them to satan.......

AhooahHot said...

Not well-written. I'm surprised this is written by a college professor. Good points though. I personally think the Wesleyans should stop lying to themselves & strike the ban of alcohol from membership requirements.

AhooahHot said...

Expound please.

Ken Schenck said...

The Wesleyan Church has developed a little on this issue since I wrote this post in 2007 (it's now 2017). It is no longer a membership requirement to abstain entirely from alcohol, but it is still a requirement of those who would be pastors or leaders. We'll see how it plays out in the future.

I do blog colloquially. :-)

Unknown said...

Elaine Lewis

I do not hear(read) any of you speak to the adverse effects of drinking alcohol? I almost get a sense of "if it feels good, do it". I had a brother-in-law who was an Army colonel die a horrible death from alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver. It began with social drinking at the Officer's Club. Two ladies from my community were killed by a drunk driver at 9 AM on a 4 laned highway that he crossed over into oncoming traffic. Gerald Crabb of the Crabb Family singers testifies of being an alcoholic and almost losing everything until God got a hold of his heart and saved him. I have been trying to impress on my 14 year old grandson that you can't become an alcoholic if you don't take the first drink. (His father and friends drink daily.) I have a picture of two local pastors drinking (one of their wives put it on Facebook) at a birthday party. This was brought to my attention by a non-Christian and it ruined those pastor's influence.

What happened to "if in doubt, don't", "abstain from the appearance of evil", or "whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me...". It seems more to me "self gratification". I heard a song a few years ago about a person that had gotten saved. He said, "I can do anything I want but my wants have been changed." Why is there more concern about changing rules than changing lives? I don't mean to be harsh in any way, but the most serious point to me should be the salvation of souls. We are too near the Lord's coming and we need to get our friends and loved ones to Jesus Christ.

AhooahHot said...

Elaine,
If scripture and context condemns it, it's a sin. Abstain. Unfortunately anecdotal stories are not scripture. Generally, Christians like canonize social norms rather than scriptural truths.