Let me begin with a disclaimer: I despise beer, and for a number of reasons, beginning with the fact that our daughter Bethany was killed by a beer-swilling drunken driver. 
Other innocent people die every day from the same cause. As a boy, I saw what havoc my great uncle's alcohol abuse wrought on my great aunt's face, and I know that millions of spouses and children continue to suffer abuse from people who love alcohol but can't handle it. Some people tell me that nothing tastes better than a cold beer, but its cloying smell and urine-like appearance have no appeal to my senses. In short, my personal view is that I can find no redeeming qualities in beer or any good reason to drink it.
Given that disclaimer, I'm aware that beer has been around since Sumerian times (3rd millennium B.C.), and isn't going away anytime soon. The powerful beer industry is virtually immune from lawsuits, and will continue to recruit new drinkers (and imperil new victims) until Jesus comes.
The question is, when Jesus comes, will he be drinking a beer?
I confess to having a hard time getting comfortable with the whole idea of "theology on tap" -- the movement among many emerging churches to host discussion groups in bars where participants (including the church leaders) have a beer while engaging in conversation about God.
I have no problem with the idea of going where the people are or with hosting a discussion group in a bar or even (to a lesser degree) with participants imbibing a bit in their natural habitat.
What I can't get used to is the image of the pastor downing a Budweiser while discussing baptism.
While many emergent congregations tend to be moderate-to-liberal in theology, I find it surprising that some extremely conservative folk have endorsed the concept of beer-based evangelism, at least when so-said evangelists hold to a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible in other areas.
For example a recent news article about a non-denominational Raleigh church called Vintage 21 revealed that at least one professor from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary is a great fan. Though he says the inclusion of beer drinking might not be the wisest choice, given widespread alcohol abuse, theology professor John Hammett told the News & Observer "Overall, I applaud what's going on at Vintage21," and described it as "a healthy church."
The church is acceptable, apparently, because it practices a very conservative approach to biblical interpretation on matters such as the place of women, and won't allow women to serve in the highest leadership positions.
Lucky for them the Bible doesn't mention beer by name, though it has a lot to say about the dangers of drunkenness.
Southeastern, in fact, is planning to join Vintage 21 -- part of the non-denominational Acts 29 network -- in co-sponsoring a "boot camp" for others who want to plant similar churches.
The thing I cannot fathom is the approach that a church can be so culture-friendly that its leaders will sit down with a beer to discuss theology, but won't allow women to sit at the table of church leadership.
There's something theologically cock-eyed about an approach that blithely ignores clear scriptural warnings against becoming a stumbling block to the weak, but holds fast to a few ambiguous texts that appear to limit leadership to men only.
If I could force down a few beers, maybe the conundrum would become clear. In the meantime, to this sober mind, it makes no sense at all.
(Image courtesy of PD Photo.com)
9 comments:
Tony,
I'm not comfortable with this type of outreach as well. To me, the main issue is the "stumbling block" issue you mentioned.
I see nothing inherently wrong with alcoholic drinks in and of themselves. However, the potential for abuse may yield frightening results.
I may be able to drink one beer and stop. However, someone else, who may not be able to stop at one beer, may see me drinking a beer and think, "If the pastor can drink a beer, then so can I." I am not willing to potentially be the influence my brother uses to drink.
This principle could be applied to almost anything else, of course: smoking, gluttony, couch-potatoitis, etc.
Anyway, that's why I don't drink.
Les
While I would not, for a number of reasons, endorse bar based evangelism, I don't find it confusing at all that a conservative church would embrace the moderate use of alcohol as a beverage as well as male only leadership in the church. The fact is, both positions are the Bible position.
Jesus drank wine. The Bible, in no uncertain language, endorses the moderate use of alcohol as a beverage. Up until the rise of the falsely so called "temperance" movement of the mid 1800s the use of alcohol as a beverage was commonly accepted among Baptists.
Teetotalism is actually a liberal position which grew out of the same 19th century liberal social movements that spawned feminism. So it no surprise that many of those who hold an anti-Biblical position on women in the ministry also hold an anti-Biblical position on the use of alcohol.
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Tony,
I am not a SEBTS grad, nor was I living in NC at the time, so I may have my facts wrong. But if I remember correctly, one of the tell-tale signs touted by the fundamentalists of the 1980's that liberlism existed at SEBTS was a story about then president Randall Lolley who offered a prayer at the opening of a brewery in the Raleigh area.
Jimmy Moore
Seems to me that there are several issues embedded in the dilema Tony raises. The question of whether one should consume alcohol or not is one question and the answer may have much or little to do with "Christian" ethics or scripture. Tony has presented good arguments from our own particular moment in history that should be considered seriously, namely the potentially deadly effects alcohol can have on someone with access to a car (not a problem throughout most Xtian history). One would be hard pressed to argue against the use of alcohol by simply turning to Christian tradition and scripture. But what about the influence of alcohol and other mind altering substances in our own day and culture - a culture saturated with easily attainable handguns where few depend upon anything other than a automobile for transportation. When compared to the rest of the world, we Americans seem fixated on cars and guns. I think the combination of what influence a substance can have and what potential weapons are available is very important for all in our society to consider, Christian or not. Serious gun control and accessable public transportation are goals in most industrialized countries, and the collective benefits speak for themselves. I can't imagine a conversation in this country where they are not seen as limiting one's rights and restricting individualism. Alcohol has a peculiar history of violence in relationship to cars and guns in the US (just consider the roots of NASCAR.)
Another issue is the motive behind these theological brew fests. I may be wrong, but they seem to reveal a desperation on the part of the church to be relevant in a world where Christian belief continues to demonstrate in its efforts to purify the fold, utter irrelevance to most of the world. Why not consider more constructive ways to engage persons in and out of the church to make the larger communities we share richer places to live?
There is no dillemma here.
Only the one that was made up in the authors mind because of his dislike of evangelicalism, and an emotional reaction to alcohol.
-----------------------------
While I agree that the question of women eldership in the NT is an open one (I guess that makes me a liberal evangelical? Sorry if I do not fit your labels). I do not think that this church is contradicting itself, why? For a few reasons:
1) No one gets drunk there.
2) You have never attended this church, nor do you have any idea about how the "non-female" eldership works out. I can assure you it is not in the same manner that you are thinking.
3) the church will allow women to actually teach before the church.
4) the church seeks to be conform itself to the Bible. Even if they are wrong about the point of women -eldership, does it matter?
Since you are the omnipotent interpreter of texts will you point out to me your definitive answers to all the problems in Christian theology?
I know these things because I am a member of this church.
I do however appreciate your self-righteous moderate to left opinions.
See, I can name call also.
I must raise an argument here.
The reason that Theology on Tap is held at Mitch's Tavern is not because of the great beer, or the great service, but for the sense of community. As followers of Christ we are to live in community with one another and also live in such a way that this community is approachable to outsiders.
Research (and by research I of course mean Barna) has shown that while people buckle up when asked about God in may places, for some reason there is something about a tavern atmosphere which allows the theological conversation to flow freely. It is for that reason that we meet there.
There is no requirement that anyone order a beer. There is no requirement that anyone order anything at all - the room is paid for, so someone could come just for the conversation/debate and feel no pressure at not being a consumer.
Not for love of beer, or any excessive drinking of beer do we gather there, but because we feel compelled to take the love of Jesus Christ to Raleigh. In doing so, we know we will face hard times, scrutiny, and painful criticism.
I am deeply saddened that some of this criticism is from our own brothers and sisters in Christ.
As a deep lover of the same God that you love, I invite you to come to Vintage21 at any time with me. I think that there you would find an active and vibrant community of genuine people living their faith. Perhaps you would find that theologically, we do in fact, disagree, but it seems to me that you are using a watered-down news article to make some pretty strong accusations.
"I despise beer, and for a number of reasons, beginning with the fact that our daughter Bethany was killed by a beer-swilling drunken driver."
Seems to me that would call for despising beer-swilling drunken drivers, not beer.
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Tony,
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
I attend Vintage21 and really appreciate the ministry that this church is trying to provide.
My heart broke when I read this story about your daughter, and I actually remembered you speaking at my graduation at Campbell about the story of her life.
I completely understand why you would have that reaction to alcohol based on that past.
My question to you would be - where do you think that "living in freedom" becomes important? I think b/c of Christ's death and resurrection, we can live life where alcohol is imbibed responsibly over theology. We can also choose to abstain because alcohol negatively impacted our lives. Both of these responses are acceptable because there is "no condemnation" (Rom 8:1) because of Christ's death and resurrection.
I understand what you're saying, but I know that Vintage 21 is changing lives and preaching Jesus. I think we can both get on board with that!
My position is very close to that articulated by Mark Osgatharp. However, I'd make a small distinction: teetotalism did not just grow out of the "same liberal social movements that spawned feminism" nor is 19th century liberalism all that similar to the reactionary totalitarianism that goes by the label "liberalism" today. Teetotalism was a very arational, emotional response to the abuse of alcohol in much the same arational, emotional response that someone has when hating beer because an abusive drinker killed a family member. I, too, have had a close family member killed by a drunk driver, but I placed the responsibility for the killing squarely where it belonged--on the driver--rather then on the substance abused.
As to "hat[ing] beer" because of its physical characteristics--the appearance and smell, 2 observations: condemning its use by all because of ones personal taste is silly and immoral. Yes, immoral. And... I, too, despised the smell and taste of beer, "back in the day" when all I had to go by was American mass-produced "water filtered through a Clydesdale" type of pseudo beer.
"...my personal view is that I can find no redeeming qualities in beer..."
Well, you've not looked very hard, I'd say. Here are just a few redeeming qualities--and not just redeeming, downright positive health benefits!--of beer.
As to the slanted rhetorical question, "[W]hen Jesus comes, will he be drinking a beer?" I'd like to hazzard an answer. Probably not, as He'll be busy with other things at the time and might well need His hands free. But as soon as the busywork is done, I'll be sure to extend an invitation for Him to drop by the lil mansion He's prepared for me for a backyard barbeque and... a beer, if He wishes.
Condemn beer because of those who abuse it and because of personal taste? Might as well condemn preaching because of the (MANY) who abuse the pulpit and because of the (again, MANY) who are such poor expositors that they offend the tastes of those who expect those who are called to preach to at least not make the Gospel sound like idiocy to those who believe.
Wait. Maybe there is something to this anti-beer position after all...
Post a Comment