Ugh. I'm sick of the same regurgitated, unsubstantiated arguments against the "consumption of beverage alcohol." But I'm not surprised. Here's an article by the Executive Director of the Missouri Baptist Convention, David Clippard. My favorite part...
All of the new church starts that the Missouri Baptist Convention has any part of supporting are required to sign and agree to a no-alcohol covenant. This covenant has been fully supported by all our church planter pastors. For this we are grateful.
Nice to see Missouri focusing on the essentials.
Posted by: Joe Thorn | 09/21/2006 at 10:34 PM
"But Director Clippard, what you're saying is that Jesus could not have been one of your Church planters."
"Well, if he signed our covenant he could be."
Yeah, they are being silly right now.
Posted by: Chase Bowers | 09/22/2006 at 06:45 AM
Is "fully supported" the same thing as "they all signed on the dotted line in order to be able to receive funding that would have otherwise been denied"?
Posted by: Marty Duren | 09/22/2006 at 07:18 AM
The part in his personal commitment about "If something does not draw me closer to Christ I will have nothing to do with it" is extremely difficult to draw out into real life with legitimate consistency. What about movies? Playing cards or pool? Sailing or swimming? Eating junk food? Does he engage in any of these non-spiritual things or has he found a way to turn them all into small paths of discipleship? Anyway, I'm glad SM has been keeping all the views posted. Keep it up
Posted by: Christian Arvold | 09/22/2006 at 07:32 AM
Steve, I'm to the point now where I say let them have the Convention. I'm starting to get the feeling that I'm not welcome in the denomination anymore, anyway.
Since they support me, they want me to join them in feeling righteous for not drinking. In exchange for my pay they want me to wallow with them in legalism and hypocrisy and isolationism.
But I've got to ask- what was the point of writing this article. Could it be that there are more than "two rabbits" out here that don't think holiness comes from setting new rules?
Posted by: stepchild | 09/22/2006 at 07:47 AM
Old joke:
"Once upon a time there were two rabbits.
"Now look how many there are."
Posted by: Kipp Wilson | 09/22/2006 at 08:26 AM
Hey alright! that's from my state. You know what they say about publicity...
I agree with Marty, the second I saw that about planters I thought, "all it tells us is we have some very pragmatic planters in MO."
Knowing Clippard (he's my boss and all), he's not a bad guy, not even legalistic in a horribly negative sense. But I definitely disagree with him on this one.
BUT...just in case this is the blog he is reading to see the "continuation of the discussion"...For the record, I have fully abided by our no beverage alcohol policy. (I guess that makes me better than all you pagan imbibers! :)
I think our policy only says "beverage alcohol" is banned b/c rubbing alcohol isn't very tasty. But I have wondered if it would be okay to buy alcohol for cooking purposes...(beer bread with pepsi not a good thing)
Really the worst part of the policy happened the other night. A friend was coming through KC and so we met up for a late dinner at a little Irish Pub. And there he sat drinking his stout right in front of me. That's rude!
Posted by: jason allen | 09/22/2006 at 09:02 AM
True story:
The day I decided I needed to plant a church started with me filling out a 17page application for a young adults position in Stockton CA. I was sitting in Sbux, witing for a guy I met with there weekly, and doing this app on my laptop. 17 pages... ugh.
The thing is, I got to a certain point where I just had to close the computer and put my head down. I very nearly cried. I had hit the question "What do you believe about alcohol" and with it, a wall. I knew at that minute that no matter how hard I tried, my days of working in someone else's paradigm, of beating my head against the same issues and trying to ask/answer the same questions over and over and over and over were done.
Through a few conversations that day, God moved me from "I need to send out resumes" to "I guess we need to plant a church."
And it started with a question about alcohol!
I'm thinking that there might be others out there with some similar feelings...
Posted by: bob hyatt | 09/22/2006 at 09:04 AM
Bob, that sounds like an episode I had while looking for a teaching position at a Bible college. Only one invited me to interview (and come to think of it, it was in Missouri...hmm...). After the small talk and whatnot, the first "real" interview question lobbed at me was:
"What's your stand on dispensationalism?"
Now, given that (a) I was attending Dallas Theological Seminary and (b) this was the very first question that they raised, I knew they weren't asking whether I was a dispensationalist but what KIND of dispensationalist I was (progressive or traditional).
Given that I am a progressive dispensationalist (like that really matters) and knowing that no school which teaches progressive dispensationalism or even allows progressive dispensationalists on its faculty would begin an interview with that question, I knew I didn't have a snowball's chance of getting the job.
Sure enough, by the end of the evening, the last question was, "What's your stand on dancing and drinking," which, after how bad the rest of the interview went, really meant, "Can you provide us any further reassurance that we are making the right decision in not hiring you?"
Fortunately for them, I could. And did.
(Epilogue: for those feeling sorry for me, shortly after that disaster, another college that had initially "we'll keep your name on file"'ed me came back with a faculty position. On my fifth year now!)
Posted by: Kipp Wilson | 09/22/2006 at 09:19 AM
It must be time for me to start writing posts again on the casualties of drinking. Its not about "self-righteousness" its about "self-control". If a beverage is more important than ministry, there's a problem.
Posted by: Travis Hilton | 09/22/2006 at 09:52 AM
I want to be more clear in why I made that last comment. I am responding to the assumption that for someone to beleive that it should be policy that someone refrian from alcohol consumption to be a missionary is "self-righteous." To have these convictions is not necessarily to be "self-righteous." If that were true, many who have served supposedly served the Lord with this conviction must be truly hypocrites.
Posted by: Travis Hilton | 09/22/2006 at 12:03 PM
Travis,
At the end of Clippard's article, he included:
"Be ye Holy; for I am Holy," 1 Peter 1:16.
Why do you think he did that?
Posted by: stepchild | 09/22/2006 at 12:43 PM
It is sad that the convention has taken an extra-biblical position on alcohol. However, I heard almost an equally sad commentary the other day from the other side.
A seminarian said to me, "All my life as a Christian I had never smoked nor drank, but now that I have come to reformed doctrine I smoke cigars and drink vodka."
The pendulum can easily swing too far. Why is this considered growth by some? On the other side I do have to admit that the glass of wine did help my stomach last night.
Posted by: Andy | 09/22/2006 at 01:02 PM
Andy, where in that quote does it say or imply growth? What about that quote says that guy went "too far?" It sounds to me like he is just saying he found some things he enjoys and it's understanding right theology that freed him from legalistic thinking. What's wrong with that?
Posted by: Steve McCoy | 09/22/2006 at 01:06 PM
stepchild,
You would have to ask Clippard that question. For me, the scripture quoted would mean that it is God alone who has the ability to make me holy, but my obedience is a reflection of His making me holy. That obedience is required in a miriad of circumstances. This happens to be an area that is debatable for some, but clear for me in application.
Posted by: Travis Hilton | 09/22/2006 at 01:24 PM
What a bummer to be missing out on beer. Last night I announced to our twenties group that once a month, instead of meeting in a home for our Bible study, we'll now be going to a local sports bar. The game plan is simply to show up, eat food, drink beer or not drink beer (depending on whether you're a legalist or not), and to be a missional presence in a place where tons of local twentysomethings hang out. I was excited to see that our group of 40 or so twentysomethings are also excited about this plan.
It was interesting to watch a few of the subtle reactions in the room when I made the announcement. After talking about modeling the gospel when considering how much to tip, I talked about how in a room this size there are probably different convictions about alcohol and how everybody should feel the freedom to drink alcohol or feel the freedom to not drink alcohol. As soon as I mentioned alcohol and talked about Jesus' fondness of it, you could see the majority of faces free up and get excited: "yes, my pastor drinks!" But you could also see a couple of faces tighten up in fear. It's interesting that some of the legalistic types are some of the flock who I've been concerned about the most and who've led me to do some blogging about twentysomethings and the church vacation this decade is taking.
Anyways, all that to say that in the name of Jesus and gospel freedom, I'd glady destroy the non-alcohol covenant by pouring my dark ale all over it.
Posted by: Justin Buzzard | 09/22/2006 at 01:50 PM
I'll drink to that
Posted by: Toby | 09/22/2006 at 02:31 PM
What if a few words of the article were changed...
_______
What if you were to randomly ask 50 lost people, “Is it appropriate for a Christian to have sex?” My experience with lost people has revealed that the overwhelming majority of those I have asked say, “No.” They believe Christians have a higher moral standard. Yet these same people have no conviction or concern about their own use of sex.
Our Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) has on many occasions in recent history passed near-unanimous resolutions that are anti-celebrating, anti-advertising and anti-use of sex. In Greensboro, N.C., at the SBC’s annual meeting in June, there was a longer-than-I-would-have-expected debate about the use of sex on the floor of the meeting. I think it was surprising for many. The discussion continues on some Internet “blogs” (Internet websites where people express their opinions and chat with others) even now.
I simply do not have time to spend on Internet “blogs” and consequently do not visit them. But, because of the convention’s debate, last June, I visited one site where some of our SBC folk are continuing this discussion. I wanted to see the rationale that was being advanced by pro-sex persons.
From the earliest days of man’s history on earth, man has had a problem with sex. Immediately before the flood in Genesis 6, Scripture indicates a misuse of sex. Humanity suffered because of alcohol use.
Sex is spoken of in the Bible all over the place. …. The majority of the instances where the Bible speaks about sex, it is not done in a positive way (example, Romans 1). The most notable exception was The Song of Solomon. But there is a question that needs to be asked at this point.
Was the sex celebrated between a husband and wife good, that is, did they find pleasure in it? Did it bring them closer to God? We really don’t know. It’s an argument from silence no matter which side of the fence you are on. But I like an explanation that I heard early in my ministry from another Baptist pastor who said, “Some people may think that sex is fine, but Baptists don’t. And as one early Baptist, Augustine, taught, sex is only to be used for procreation. If you enjoy it, it is a sin.”
Although the Bible does not state total abstinence, there are many other compelling scriptural reasons to abstain from the use of sex. One of those problems the Bible teaches concerns the issue of stumbling blocks we read of in Rom. 14.
I am confident that many people who take and debate a pro-sex position have never had a friend or family member destroyed by sexual abuse. If they have ever spent time around a serious sex abuse victim, they will realize the tremendous physical bondage the afflicted person has. After all, they don’t call sex-crimes “SEX-crimes” for no reason. When you have sex, you are under the influence of a different pleasure than the Holy Spirit gives when you don’t have sex. The “pleasure” of sex will control you.
I have a very dear pastor friend who, in his pre-salvation days, had sex everyday! Today, he absolutely hates sex because of his personal bondage and what his appetite for sex put his lovely wife through in their younger years.
Some years after his salvation, he once attended the worship service of another denomination that encouraged the enjoyment of sex. Just the mention of the word sex drove him crazy! The desires of the flesh are powerful even years after spiritual delivery. My pastor friend told me that he struggled for weeks after hearing the word “sex.”
You may set up stumbling blocks for your own children and grandchildren. As your children grow, you may teach them not to abuse sex. But as they grow older, they may respond to you by saying, “Mom and Dad, your engage in sex within marriage. My choice is to engage in sex outside of marriage.” At that point, you have lost your testimony to your own family and can only speak hypocritically.
So, what should you do? I’d like to suggest that you make a decision for total abstinence for three simple reasons:
1. Your Testimony to the Lost
Question to ask: “Will the activity that I am about to be involved in help my testimony to one I desire to reach with the Gospel?”
Absolutely not. The use of pleasure after you become a Christian is strictly forbidden.
2. Your Testimony to the Saved
Question to ask: “Does my activity do anything that would cause another brother to stumble?”
“Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way. ...If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love...” Rom. 14:13,15.
Some people may be led to have sex if they know you have sex. Therefore, for the sake of your weaker brother, remove the stumbling block and do not engage in sex.
3. Your Testimony to God and Self
Question to ask: “Will the practice or non-practice of this activity lead me any closer to the Lord?”
You clearly are not thinking about God in the middle of sex, are you? Are you praying? Are you reading Scripture? Are you feeding the poor? You see, sex gets in the way of communion with God. Therefore, you should abstain
Personal Commitment: If anything will not lead me closer to the Lord, then I’ll have nothing to do with it.
I read many church covenants on the walls of our Missouri churches. Almost without exception, there is a portion of the covenant that members make to abstain from sex. This begs another question, “Does the church enforce its membership covenants?” This is a matter of church discipline.
Few churches exercise church discipline anymore. I walked with my church family as we went through the process of church discipline on a couple of occasions. I can tell you that it is a time consuming and emotionally hard thing to do.
All of the new church starts that the Missouri Baptist Convention has any part of supporting are required to sign and agree to a no-sex covenant. This covenant has been fully supported by all our church planter pastors. For this we are grateful.
Do I believe many of our SBC churches advocate or support sexuality and the use of sex? No, I very much doubt it. But when you get wind that this is a widely held view of Baptist churches, remember, “Two rabbits (in the SBC) can make a lot of tracks in the snow in just one night. This might give the impression of many but it’s not.”
“Be ye Holy; for I am Holy,” 1 Peter 1:16. After all, Jesus didn’t have sex. And we are called to be like Him.
________
Let him who has eyes to see....
Posted by: John | 09/22/2006 at 02:59 PM
This is all just so silly.... I think I'm tired of thinking about it.
A brief word to Travis Hilton - You are correct in saying that having these convictions does not necessarily make one self righteous. (As an aside, I think it is certainly a strong possibility that many who so vehemently hold such convictions wear them as a badge of pride and are at least in danger of trusting in their own righteousness).
BUT THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION HERE. The issue is that someone who holds that personal conviction wants to force it on others. And that's a little thing we call legalism.
Posted by: Alex | 09/22/2006 at 05:32 PM
John,
I had a pastor when I was a teenager who did believe that sex was only permitted for the purpose of procreation - not for enjoyment. At least he was consistent.
Posted by: Paul | 09/22/2006 at 11:46 PM
Alex,
I'm not for sure that this is the appropriate time for debate after reading Steve's announcement yesterday. But let me just tie up some loose ends and be done with it.
First of all, thanks for the reasoned response and recognizing the plausablity of at least some of my argument.
"BUT THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION HERE. The issue is that someone who holds that personal conviction wants to force it on others. And that's a little thing we call legalism."
Using all caps on the web implys shouting. Beleive me, I can hear you loud and clear without that. I am well aware of what is being discussed. My comment was more in response to a couple of comments and not the main post.
I think that your charge of legalism is too general. The question would have to asked concerning a church covenant or the policy of a missions organization as to why such a requirement exists. In Acts 15:29, the Apostles and Elders had requirements given to the gentiles when the Judizers were encroaching with legalism. Why did they tell them to abstain from certain foods? There may have been several reasons, but the main two I derive is to keep the unity of the faith and to be a living witness to the Jews.
Why would Paul come back to Jerusalem (led by the Spirit) in Acts 21 and submit to James and all the Elders in observing a Nazarite vow and leading four other men to do so? Was he implying by submiting to these observances that he was somehow preserving his salvation? No way. God gave the Jews the same liberty to continue to observe the spirit of the law as long as it did not imply a means of grace. Paul would have never participated had that been the case. Why did he do this? For unity the Church and to be a witness to the unbelieving Jews.
If anyone was to imply in a covenant or guideline that by abstaining from alcohol one is retaining grace or that somehow this makes one a Christian, that would be legalism. Otherwise, a covenant or guideline that is agreed to by both parties in this area is not implying that the observance is some means of obtaining grace, is not necessarily legalism. It is not "forcing something on someone else" because those who join the missions group or church submit to the agreement beforehand.
Grace,
Travis
Posted by: Travis Hilton | 09/23/2006 at 04:17 PM
To my knowledge, no one is accusing anybody of making alcohol a salvation issue. For everybody involved, it is an issue of what is the wise thing to do. All Christians as individuals have the freedom to drink in moderation or abstain. Just like all voluntary Christian associations have the freedom to enforce a certain ethos among their members. No one questions that.
What I question, however, is the rationale that has been given publicly and repeatedly by the SBC and its leaders (Dr. Clippard's article being one of many examples) as to why drinking in moderation is inappropriate, unwise, a stumbling block, and just about everything short of S-I-N. Their positions as leaders in the denomination (that in many ways, let's face it, chose us) carry a certain responsibility to speak softly on areas where the Scripture does not lay down a clear rule. Many leaders of the SBC have done exactly the opposite on alcohol (Bobby Welch comes to mind).
Whether you agree with Dr. Clippard's position on pragmatic grounds or not, he makes some outrageous statements in his piece. For example, he seems to be persuaded by the idea that Jesus' would never use a fermented drink to represent his atoning blood. Why? Because according to his odd logic, fermented=rotten or degraded. My father-in-law is a lay preacher and a vineyard manager (in Australia, I might add, where Wesleyan teetotalism has gone by the wayside). Not that he needs me to defend him, but to suggest that wine is merely rotten grape juice is as ignorant as it is offensive. If Dr. Clippard is worried about those who drink destroying their witness, he should seriously consider the impact of homespun theology posing as sage advice for all the world to see.
Almost as ridiculous is his claim that parents who drink alcohol have no solid ground to forbid their children from using illicit drugs. This, pure and simple, is scare tactics--an attempt to intimidate Christian parents who might consider drinking in moderation. Caffeine is also a drug, in the strict sense. So latte loving pastors beware! You may one day need some leverage to keep your kids away from crack. Give me a break.
I said before that Baptist associations have the right to enforce a certain ethos among their members that may in some cases go beyond the teaching of Scripture. This is not legalism in the strict sense, as Travis pointed out. They do not, however, have the right to be judgmental toward others for disagreeing with their position. I know that the majority of those who question the SBC resolution on this blog and elsewhere do so because they love what the SBC is about. They love its potential to change the world for Christ. And they believe that this undue focus on non-essentials (alcohol, tongues, etc) as marks of the denomination is unhelpful and in some cases harmful.
It's no secret that the SBC has done a less-than-good job to date in mobilizing younger people and churches for missions involvement-especially through the cooperative program. There are those who for the sake of the gospel would like to see that trend reversed. With that in mind, let's all try harder to listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches.
Posted by: Tyler | 09/24/2006 at 04:04 AM
I guess I was wondering how 1 Cor. 9 fit in with this. Legalism is quite a problem. But when among teetotalers, wouldn't Paul abstain that he might win some of them to Christ?
So I guess it is possible to sign this if that gets you into a subculture where alcohol use is frowned upon. And do it in a way that does not compromise the Gospel. You aren't telling people THEY can't drink if they are a Christian, you are just abstaining from alcohol use to open the door to the Gospel.
Yeah, easy for me to say... I probably wouldn't sign it, but I'm not trying to reach a culture that abstains.
Just a different view point to consider.
Posted by: cavman | 09/24/2006 at 09:00 PM
Being a Bible college professor, I am in the substantially awkward situation at my school of defending a position I don't believe in. Here's what I see Scripture saying:
1. Restrict your liberty for the sake of someone who (a) believes the action in question is sin, (b) would be tempted to perform that action while still believing it to be sin (i.e., has not changed in his understanding of the nature of the action), and (c) is known by you to meet criteria (a) and (b).
2. Around unbelievers, change your actions in non-essential areas to connect with them on a cross-cultural basis so that the non-essential does not become a stumbling block to faith in Christ.
And that's it.
But we have another situation here, don't we? We try to apply the above in situations where (a) the other person is a believer, (b) the other person is not tempted to imitate you in said action, and (c) the other person is unwilling to entertain the idea that abstinence may further his spiritual walk while indulgence furthers yours (which is the point of Romans 14).
We can talk about unity all we want, but I don't see Paul, or in fact anyone in the NT, accommodating legalism in areas of liberty. Okay, I'll grant you the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, though that is certainly ambiguous. The "Baptists" of their time (and yes, these were believers--see v.5) wanted believers circumcised and taught to obey all the Law. The Jerusalem Council did not submit to all of that for the sake of unity; rather, they scaled back the requirements to two absolutes (no idolatry, no sexual immorality) and two liberties (no strangled meat, no blood), liberties I might add that I'm not sure the Gentiles of the time typically violated anyway...
As I said, I have a great deal of difficulty with this. Usually I default to "those in authority over you have laid this down; even if they're wrong, would you be right for dishonoring them?" Which makes me feel like a cult leader.
Any advice? This is hard to post, but it is the honest truth.
Posted by: Kipp Wilson | 09/24/2006 at 09:41 PM
Addendum:
Okay, upon further study, perhaps the last part of Romans 14 can be used to defend the idea of restricting your liberty to prevent offense (rather than temptation) for someone who considers the action a sin. What do you think?
Posted by: Kipp Wilson | 09/24/2006 at 09:45 PM
Steve, does Missouri really need more Baptist churches? The state is crawling with Christians. Maybe the Missouri Baptist Convention should defer Mr. Clippard's annual salary to SBC church planting efforts in Iraq.
Posted by: Thomas E. Ward, Jr. | 09/25/2006 at 04:13 PM
Thomas,
Are you kidding me?? The state is crawling with Christians?? I can't think of a state that is crawling with Christians! I lived in TN 2 hours outside of Nashville the holy grail of the bible belt and that state is definately NOT crawling with Christians. Every state needs more churches, just not the ones that put tradition ahead of biblical teaching.
Posted by: Toby D | 09/25/2006 at 07:53 PM
Yeah Thomas, living in Missouri (most of my life) I think it is safe to say your assessment is way off the mark. I can appreciate your comparison to Iraq, which is surely more under-churched than MO. But to say MO is crawling with Christians couldn't be further from the truth, literally.
But, since you're unaware of what is happening in the MO Baptist Convention, I would also draw your attention to our many international partnerships, including Iraq. In fact, we were one of the first State conventions in Iraq after the fall of Sadam's regime. We also have partnerships in Turkey, and are developing more in the region (not to mention partnerships in N. America, S. America, E. Europe, and more).
These partnerships have come under the leadership of Dave Clippard, and it is clear that international mission efforts is valued in our state. You could probably get your hands on our fiscal budget if you would like further evidence.
I have many questions about our state convention and our future direction. But one thing is clear in my mind, church planting - here and abroad - is a vital part of who we are. And I continue to side with Keller when he says planting new churches is the most effective way to evangelize a region.
Posted by: jason allen | 09/26/2006 at 11:03 AM
Are you kidding me? Saying that Missouri needs more churches is like saying Dubai needs more mosques or Springfield (Missouri) needs more Wal-Marts.
What leads you to believe that more churches being planted in what is already one of the most overchurched regions of the world is going to produce different results than it already has? And I am posing that question seriously.
Posted by: Thomas E. Ward, Jr. | 09/26/2006 at 01:19 PM
Thomas, you are well off topic. If you have a bone to pick with church planting in the U.S. this isn't the thread for you. Please get back on topic or let others continue the discussion. Thanks.
Posted by: Steve McCoy | 09/26/2006 at 01:25 PM
Steve, you're right, sorry for spinning this discussion off in another direction. But don't patronize me. I'm not trying to argue the merits of church planting in the U.S. I am heavily invested in church planting. I've spent the last 8 years of my life as a church planter. And I do think my last question has merit as it relates to this post.
Posted by: Thomas E. Ward, Jr. | 09/26/2006 at 01:55 PM
Thomas, I wasn't trying to be precise about what your actual argument is. I don't really care. What I do care about is that it's off topic, even your last question. Thanks for understanding.
Posted by: Steve McCoy | 09/26/2006 at 02:10 PM
Something to consider about the "no-alcohol" requirement for MO church planters:
Without a doubt, it's a stupid rule, however well intentioned. Such a requirement unnecessarily shrinks the tent, so to speak.
But I also affirm the right of any local organization to make and enforce whatever stupid rules they want. They don't have to care whether I like their rules or not. And if God is calling someone to plant churches in MO, and they don't want to sign the pledge, then they should by all means decline that organization's support and commence planting churches on their own. Local autonomy and religious liberty mean freedom to follow the dictates of your conscience, not the right to be supportd by people who disagree with you.
Posted by: Publius | 09/26/2006 at 04:12 PM
Thomas, not going to respond to your question per Steve's request above (my responding would be just as off topic--sorry Steve). But I will say the tone and tenor of your comments doesn't leave much room for cordial conversation. I'm sure you have serious questions, but your tone (which I'm sure arises out of passion, and that I can appreciate) doesn't connote a very inviting atmosphere for discussion.
Posted by: jason allen | 09/26/2006 at 04:54 PM
I too struggle with this issue as a bible teacher for a large young married class within my church. I keep going back to 1 Corinthians 10:31-33 "So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved."
Although I like beer I choose not to drink for the following reasons:
1. I don't want to cause anyone to stumble.
2. I try daily to put my good aside, not always successfully, but my flesh would love to drink a Guiness, but instead of gratifying my flesh and possibly hurting my witness I abstain.
3. As a leader in the church I feel that I am called to live a life above reproach. Not legalistically, not self-righteously, but a life that wouldn't cause others to question my ministry in a negative way.
4. In a dying world we need to focus on the fundamental...Christ, the cross, salvation to those who accept God's gracious gift.
I suppose the quesitons is how are we to be salt and light in a dying world? What sets us apart? We will all be faced with questions like these that at some point will force us to take a stand. "all thinks are permisable, yet not all things are beneficial...all things are permisable, yet not all things are constructive"
Are my actions permisable...yes....are they beneficial and constructive? Maybe, maybe not.
Posted by: bjnotbk | 09/27/2006 at 10:32 AM
oh, I am also a horrible speller, I apologize
Posted by: bjnotbk | 09/27/2006 at 10:33 AM
Yeah, I'm with you, bjnotbk. There are some elements to that reasoning that I (sincerely) struggle with:
1. We are to live our lives above legitimate reproach, not illegitimate reproach (Matt. 5:11). Obviously I'm not going to require every student of mine to use only the KJV simply because there are some people out there who are offended (some I'm sure to the point of questioning my salvation). So the question is, is this a legitimate reproach?
2. Is "being offended" a legitimate definition of "stumbling"? I can understand not leading someone into alcoholism, or even tempting them to drink if they feel that drinking is sin. But we're dealing with people who in no way (at least according to them) are tempted. They are just offended.
3. My biggest problem is Paul himself. I know when he was with the Jews he acted as a Jew, and when he was with the Gentiles he acted as a Gentile (1 Cor. 9:19-23). But the very fact that he wrote these things to various churches tells me that he admitted to changing his behavior depending on the audience. In other words, the Jewish believers knew that he acted as a Gentile when around Gentiles. It's the equivalent of telling the SBC, "As long as I'm physically around SBCers, I will of course abstain. But I'm telling you in no uncertain terms that when I'm around drinkers, I will hoist a pint."
That's my biggest dilemma. What good does it do for Paul to restrict his liberty in the presence of "the weaker brother" when he actually TELLS the weaker brother (and everyone else) that he doesn't restrict his liberty around others?? Wouldn't that lead the weaker brother into temptation?
Posted by: Kipp Wilson | 09/27/2006 at 12:11 PM