And isn't alcohol part of the problem here in Missoula? Won't you be causing people to stumble? What are you guys thinking?!?!"
These are good questions, and they deserve thoughtful answers. Let's see if we can shed some light on our reasoning...
1. First and foremost: Jesus. You see, we could ask him these same questions too. After all, Jesus made wine (and it was the good stuff). He was never afraid to engage his culture 'outside of church' - he goes to weddings, he loves parties, he hangs out with 'sinners.' And it made folks nervous in his day, too (especially religious ones).
It just seems so risky. Wouldn't it be safer simply to avoid it altogether?
Perhaps. Yet as Christ's followers, we need to be very slow to condemn or avoid what Jesus didn't, lest we take traditions of men and make them out to be commandments of God (cf. Mark 7:7). After all, that's precisely what most of us - Christians and non-Christians alike - hate about churches. So if Jesus didn't anathematize alcohol, neither should we.
2. This leads to a second point: brokenness. It's very easy to look at alcohol as the problem, to think that simply getting rid of it (or avoiding it) will fix things.
But Jesus views things differently - he insists that the root of sin lies in what's behind our external behavior; that it actually flows from the dark desires that lurk within our hearts (cf. Mark 7:15-23). In other words, for Jesus, there's a much bigger problem than what-we-do-with-alcohol - it's the why-we-do-it. It's about that hole in our heart, that we're trying to fill. It's about the pain in our lives, that we're trying to drown.
If we think we're solving those problems simply by saying, "Don't drink!" we're kidding ourselves. And we might actually be distracting others from the real issues. Mere avoidance never gets us to the heart of the problem. Listen to Martin Luther:
Do you suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused? Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women? The sun, the moon, and the stars have been worshiped. Shall we then pluck them out of the sky?He's not saying brokenness doesn't matter. He's saying we don't actually solve the real problem simply by banning things that broken people use and abuse. As a church, we need to be careful not to oversimplify brokenness.
3. The same is true for redemption. Jesus claims to be able to do something about our deepest cravings. Whether it's lust for sex or lust for drink, Jesus claims he can quench our thirsts and transform our desires. So while alcohol may be part of the problem, we think it can also be part of the solution.
Put simply, the church ought to be the place that most visibly manifests Gospel renovation.
As we embrace Christ and grow in our understanding of his gracious acceptance of us (even if we struggle with drink!), we should also start to be freed from fear of drink (what it might do to us), freed from fear of our reputations (what others might think of us if we drink), freed from our need to use drink (to drown our woes or be someone we are not).
The church ought to be the place that illustrates the greatest of liberty without lapsing into excess. A high calling to be sure. But should we settle for anything less?
4. And then there's integrity. Many of us enjoy a glass of beer or wine from time to time, and we think it's important that we are never afraid to be publicly who we are in private.
Here at All Souls, we see these things as gifts from God, to be enjoyed in community with gratitude and gratefulness. Why wouldn't we want to share that with our friends here in Missoula?
5. But what about the church?!? After all, we're supposed to be in the business of saving souls, not selling beer, right?
And that's true. (Actually, we'd prefer to say that God's the one who saves souls, not us, but for the sake of the argument, we'll go with it for now. The point is that the church of Christ is not really here to be in the business of "being in business." Selling stuff. Making money. We agree with that.)
That's why we're not trying to be a brewery - we'd rather partner with someone that's already in that line of work, and knows how to do it really well. Like Big Sky Brewing Co.
That's also why we're not trying to make money on this thing - the whole point is to generate revenue for someone else so they can use it to make this community better. Like Imagine Missoula.
You see, what we're really trying to do here is be about Jesus' business. And the very real question for any church (and for any Christian) is simply this: What IS Jesus' business? Is it just "saving souls"? Is he only interested in those who follow him? Or does he have a bigger agenda - like justice for the oppressed, mercy for the poor, putting the whole world right?
If Jesus calls his followers to get on board with his agenda - to be agents of change working for the shalom of our cities and the needs of our neighbors - then we think it makes an awful lot of sense to do this kind of thing.
After all, a non-profit like Imagine Missoula (and a beer like All Souls Ale!) make it possible for all sorts of people to get in on redemption - working to renew Missoula! - even if they don't share our convictions about Jesus. And we think that's a pretty cool proposition.
So we don't ask them to give money to our church - we simply invite them to enjoy a really great beer and help support a really great cause, all at the same time. And we think most people in our community will think that's a pretty good idea!
19 comments:
Just an fyi... comments are turned ON for this post (the Rants & Raves page is kind of full right now).
Hi Christian,
I'm a long-time follower of your blog and friend of Jakob from Moody. I laud what you are doing at your church. You are bound to receive tremendous feedback from Christians as a result of your efforts, likely mostly negative. I have felt for a long time that the only sin I'm told to hate is my own. The notion of "loving the sinner, hating the sin" is as far from biblical as could be. Someone else's sin is between them and God. To cast judgement is to sin, not to do my "duty" as a Christian. I cannot fully embrace my fellow man if I am obsessed with his or her sin. I'm clearly as guilty as anyone else according to Christ as the thoughts of my mind condemn me as though actually performed in the eyes of God. You won't get on any evangelical list of "Who's Who" with your methods, but I believe God is on your side.
Cheers!
Dave Snyder
When I visit Missoula, I will be stopping by to visit you to experience the "draft" of the gospel!
Hey, this is a great idea. I wish you guys well. We should do this in St. Louis since it is such a beer town.
We found an historical document about the Lutheran church whose building our church plant leases and they used to have big picnics in the 19th century, and the church supplied the beer/wine and the people supplied the food.
Christian,
I'm confused how you are using the word "redemption" in this article. Despite any concerns I might have with this method of outreach, I'm more concerned that you imply that people can "get in on redemption" even though they think differently about Jesus than Christians do? The idea of redemption as a pretty definite meaning in the Scriptures that is different from language used regarding social justice, etc. Wouldn't it be better to guard this language for what it is used for...namely what folk receive when they relinquish trying to save themselves and trust wholly in Christ Jesus? Words are very important...particularly this one.
Ah, Danny - a careful reader! I wondered if anyone would notice that, and I'm glad you asked because I think this is a very good question.
You said, "I'm more concerned that you imply that people can 'get in on redemption' even though they think differently about Jesus than Christians do?"
And I would reply: "What's grace? How do people get in on that? Do you have to become a Christian first? Or is grace somehow the means by which people find their way to Christ?"
Theologians back in the days of Luther and Calvin answered this question by making a distinction - between "common grace" and "saving grace."
Common grace is God's goodness working itself out in the world to all sorts of people, regardless of their faith - he sends rain on those who believe as well as those who don't.
Saving grace is the grace that actually draws people to faith (love, trust, allegiance) in Christ.
So my question is this: What if "redemption" actually functions in a similar fashion?
I'll leave it to you to connect the dots on this one, to see whether or not you might agree.
If you're curious about what biblical texts might drive such thinking, I'd point to Jeremiah 29:7, where God tells his people "Work for the good (shalom) of the city" (and it's important to realize he's speaking to Jews in exile in Babylon here!) - "Work for the good of the city, for in it's shalom, you will find your shalom..."
I'm not saying you'll agree with us on this - but perhaps ruminating on this idea will help you understand where we're coming from here...
Thanks for taking the time to read so carefully and to make such an astute observation!
All thriugh the ages there have been people who quit drinking after it looked like they never would or could. I am one of them. I'm very afraid to drink again. It's a good fear for me like riding a grizzly bear. I have been to your church and love it. Please take my sincere encouragement.
Christian,
The short answer is "no", redemption does not function in the same way as the common/saving grace distinction. The Scripture does not posit a distinction between common redemption and saving redemption. Seeking the peace (well-being, good) of a city (via your quote from Jeremiah) is not the same thing as a city being redeemed (btw, the Scriptures never speak of cultural institutions being redeemed, save OT Israel, the anti-type of the church).
Once we start using the Scriptural words for our eternal salvation in ways the Scripture has never intended we (perhaps unintentionally), compromise the truth, power, and radical nature of the gospel. We confuse the great commandment (to love neighbor, or in Jer. words, seeking the peace of the city), with the great commission (to preach the gospel). In order to "get in on redemption", one must be saved. A quick search through the Scriptures regarding the whole idea of redemption will confirm this.
Stick to your common/saving grace distinction. THAT one is biblical. The other comes dangerously close to blurring the distinctiveness of the gospel and the redemption promised there.
Hey Danny, thanks for taking the time to respond. It sounds like we probably read our Bibles differently on this particular issue.
Hopefully (even though you think we're wrong on this) you'll at least be able to better understand where we're coming from...
Christian, you say:
"After all, a non-profit like Imagine Missoula (and a beer like All Souls Ale!) make it possible for all sorts of people to get in on redemption - working to renew Missoula! - even if they don't share our convictions about Jesus. And we think that's a pretty cool proposition."
Even granted that your distinction between commmon/special redemption, how would someone make that distinction that you are making from what you write here. It seems to me to be written in a careless way so that people would just assume that there is one way of redemption, and drinking beer is one way to accomplish it.
Just trying to understand your position, would, for example, cutting my fingernails be a redemptive activity, since I'm improving creation and bringing order into it? Do you apply this to every activity that enhances creation in some way?
I'm working on a response to your article on pot. It's possible that I've misunderstood to you, but it seems that there are some problematic elements, IMHO, even though I appreciate some of the reasons for the article.
Also, you should go over to wordpress. To use your terminology, that would be a redemptive act indeed.
Hi Wes - thanks for taking the time to post. A couple of quick comments in response...
1. it's definitely not carelessly worded; but it's also not exhaustive.
2. we're not suggesting that simply drinking beer gets you in on redemption; yet we are suggesting that there's a way that simply drinking beer could get you in on redemption.
3. if you'd like more detail, I'd actually ask you to email me directly (I'd prefer not to let one conversation dominate the comment thread on this post).
Thanks!
Christian. Since we are not connecting dots in the same way; and since our connected dots display very different pictures, perhaps you can lay out for me what "get in on redemption" means. How are you defining "redemption", and what does it mean to "get in on" it. Redemption, via a place like Col. 1:13-14 is described as the forgiveness of sins and comes when one is rescued from the kingdom of darkness and transferred into the kingdom of the Son of God's love. This comes only through Christ (again, Col. 1:13-14). The redemption you are speaking of seems much more elastic, much more inclusive.
Please know that my goal here is not to be nick-picky! My goal is to preserve and guard the glorious distinctiveness of the gospel, and the meaning of redemption. I fear words in the Scriptures are being used in a way that they were never intended to be used by God. Remember, we are to be stewards of the Lord's Word. We must preserve what it says. We are ambassadors of the Lord's Word, speaking only what it speaks and the way it speaks.
Christian, I love it! I'm in Jackson Hole and run a program called Theology on Tap where we discuss relevant issues and invite anyone to join in on the fun. We'll be reading this article on Tuesday, thanks! And we certainly don't judge anyone who comes to the program... I would implore that others who commented here to not get so righteous on people who may not be "saved" and let the church seem less haughty than usual for once.
www.adventbrewing.com
www.theadventatlanta.org
Cheers from a brewing church in Atlanta!
Matt - it's a pleasure to meet you! It's always nice to hear of others who are thinking along these lines. If you ever find yourself passing through Missoula, look me up!
Gabrielle - I appreciate your comments on charity and humility, and would love to hear how your discussion goes. Wish I had more notice - I would have loved to send you a couple of bottles to sample with your group!
Dear Christian,
I was wondering what method you use to determine to whom you respond on your blog. Some of your commentors received responses, others did not (me included).
Cheers!
Hey Dave - that's a good question! Thanks for your patience and persistence :-)
1. Most of it is just time (or lack thereof) - things are very busy here, which means we often struggle to keep up with email, etc. That's probably not a very satisfying answer, but it's honest. Sometimes I long for the early days of the church plant when we had a lot more time to sit and write.
2. We tend to prioritize toward local ministry, since we feel like this is our primary calling - so if it's a choice between sitting down with someone locally here in Missoula vs. responding to questions online from people who live elsewhere, well, local folks will get our attention first. Which (again) may not be very satisfying. But we do feel like that's our primary calling.
3. We do READ everything, but we generally try to let people's comments speak for themselves (especially those who disagree with us). We don't exert a lot of energy trying to "prove ourselves right" to people who think we're in the wrong. We do try to answer questions that seem genuinely curious about who we are and what we're up to. Again, assuming we have enough time.
4. The best way to get answers to specific questions is to shoot us an email or come visit us in person. We love to share what God is doing here. There's just a lot going on that's not online...
Thanks for following along!
Christian, thanks for the reply. I do understand the pressures of life, particularly these days. And the ministry places demands on one's time that only people in the ministry can really understand. For whatever it's worth, some folks may not understand why you choose not to respond to them but do so to others. They won't understand all the why's and what-for's behind your reasoning, however solid it might be. Once you stick a blog out there, you take the chance that lots of folks will respond. Blogging etiquette seems to dictate that one either respond to none of the comments he receives or to all of them. Although I wouldn't suggest you become obsessed with what people think, picking and choosing to whom you respond may look either petty or like you've got a "clique" out there on the Internet that certain people aren't a part of. Just my thoughts. Love the blog and what you're doing. Cheers! Dave Snyder
Post a Comment