Dynamic Yet Consistent

I am often asked for my opinion/perspective on issues related to alcohol and Christianity because of my experience as a distiller and as a pastor.  There has been a lot of talk around this amongst my friends because my hometown of Somerset, KY is about to vote on weather or not to allow alcohol sales in the county. I have communicated my thoughts with many people individually, but figured now is as good a time as ever to post them for others.

Here is a modified version of an email I sent to a friend while discussing the issue:

When discussing alcohol and the Bible, I think the burden of proof lies on those who choose to demonize alcohol. Obviously drunkenness is flat out forbidden throughout scripture, but there is a distinct line between the consumption of alcohol and drunkenness. In fact, if anything, the consumption of alcohol is held in high regard in the Bible. Consider the following:

One of the two central sacraments of Christianity involves the consumption of wine. If God/Jesus thinks drinking alcohol is bad, I doubt he would have set up communion around it. (By the way, it was a Methodist pastor, Rev. Welch, who started the tradition of using grape juice instead of wine and that was only in recent history. He went on to found Welch’s Grape juice).

Paul instructs his protégé Timothy to drink wine instead of just water for his stomach (1 Tim 5:23). We get most of our New Testament "dos and don’ts" from Paul, yet here he encourages his (young) apprentice to consume alcohol.

In the Old Testament (and carrying on into the New Testament), wine is not a symbol of sin, it is a symbol of celebration. In fact, THE central symbol of God’s blessing to his people is the symbol of wine. What do you think the phrase "my cup runneth over" means? It means that God has blessed him so much that he has more wine than he can drink. God shows his favor by giving alcohol (If you need references, I have a slew of them). Again, how can we demonize something that God sees as being a symbol of his love and blessing?

We can bring this imagery back to the New Testament when we look at Jesus’ first miracle: turning water into wine. I have 40+ page paper I wrote on this passage (you can read it here), but I will just give you the cliff notes: This miracle in John chapter two is used to frame the start of Jesus’ ministry. Not only is it significant that Jesus turned water into wine (again, why would he do this if God is opposed to alcohol), but the symbolism is striking. The ministry of Jesus is replacing an oppressive system of rules (the water jars were used for ritualistic washing), with overflowing blessing and provision. Jesus isn’t opposed to wine, he uses it as a symbol of showing how great God’s love and blessing really are. When we demonize alcohol, we miss out on ways in which God is showing his love.

Perhaps my favorite alcohol related passage comes in Deuteronomy 14 when it talks about how you handle the tithe. (By the way, I have major issues with the way the church teaches on tithing.  See here and here.) Basically it says you should take 10% of your yield and go to Jerusalem and use it for a celebration of what God has done with your friends and family. But, if you live so far away that you cannot physically bring your tithe to Jerusalem then you should:

"…turn it into money. With the money secure in hand, go to the place that the LORD your God will choose (Jerusalem); spend the money for whatever you wish– oxen, sheep, wine, strong drink, or whatever you desire. And you shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God, you and your household rejoicing together." -DT 14:25-26

Did you catch that? If you can’t take your physical tithe to Jerusalem then you are supposed to sell it, and use the money to throw a huge party that includes wine and strong drink!

So, when you look at what the bible teaches about alcohol, you find that instead of demonizing it and calling for total abstinence, the bible actually celebrates alcohol and repeatedly uses it as a symbol of God’s blessing.

Now of course, the standard response is that drinking "may cause your brother to stumble" and thus it is better to abstain. I will admit that is a valid point, but only when used consistently. Tea-totalers will often argue that any drinking sets a bad example and may cause others to stumble. Basically, if someone sees you drinking then they will automatically fall off the bandwagon and become a raging alcoholic. I am sorry, but that logic is faulty. In most cases, the only people who "stumble" are the tea-totalers who get all bent out of shape at the thought of a Christian drinking. Of course you should not be taking shots of whiskey in an AA, meeting, but if you are enjoying a wine or beer with friends, I highly doubt that is going to cause anyone to stumble. There are places and times I abstain from drinking, but there is no way you can come up with a biblical argument for total abstention for all people in all circumstances.

I understand there are good reasons to not drink at all, but the problem is, when you insist that approach should apply to everyone, you neglect the good that comes with the risk. Take sex for instance. There are plenty of passages talking about sexual sin, and total abstinence from sex is considered a virtuous option according to Paul. But, if you think that no one should have sex then you miss out on the gift that sexuality in a committed relationship is intended to be. The same is true with wealth. There are plenty of passages talking about greed and living a life of poverty is considered a virtuous option. However, if we demonize wealth then we miss the fact that God often uses wealth to show his blessing (bearing in mind that we are blessed to be a blessing to others).

The same is true with alcohol. It is a virtuous option not to drink, but requiring it puts us in a place where we cannot fully appreciate the blessings of God.

I said before, that logic of causing a brother to stumble must be used consistently. If someone is going to insist on abstaining from alcohol for their brother’s sake then they should never eat a Twinkie in front of a fat person, never drive a nice car in front of someone tempted to covet, never discuss controversial things with someone prone to anger, never have a baby around single people (because a baby requires sex to make that idea might cause a single person to stumble), etc. The list goes on… why should we only pick one example and live rigidly by it while ignoring all the others.

Of course if theological reasoning doesn’t work, you can always remind people that Elijah Craig, the inventor of bourbon, was a Baptist Pastor.

Last Tuesday morning started like usual… in fact, it had a certain air of excitement to it: We had just informed a few of our staff members that they would be traveling to the United States for an AIDS conference.  Adults who rarely show excitement were bursting with smiles, almost to the point of giggling.

Unfortunately within a few hours the whole community around us was bursting with a different type of emotion: raw sorrow and pain.  We found out around 10am that the two 2-year-old children of one of our former staff members had drowned in the canal.  They had been staying with their Gogo (grandmother) and had wandered away.  Some of the children on a nearby homestead saw them in the water and called their parents.  By the time people reached them both were already dead.

I simply don’t have the words to express the amount of sadness and grief that instantly swept through the entire area.  The mother, Nakiwe, was one of our brightest employees before she took a new job to be closer to her husband in Manzini.  The father, Felix, is a police officer, but has worked with Cabrini in the education for years and years, he was apart of life on the mission even before the current sisters were.  The grandfather was one of the major leaders in the church and in his chiefdom.  Probably a quarter of our staff live within a couple kilometers of where the boys drowned.

For five days, friends and family came to the homestead to grieve with the family, but despite the crowds of people, there simply aren’t the words that can be said.  You can’t give an explanation for something as tragic as this and any words of comfort will always ring hollow.

On Sunday morning before the sun came up, Beth, Mikayla and I didn’t celebrate Mother’s Day; instead we had to watch a wonderful mother bury her two innocent children.

There is already too much death in Swaziland. 

At least once a week one of our roughly 3,000 patients dies of HIV or TB.  The country has had to encourage people to only bury people on Saturdays because otherwise there would be no time to do anything but go to funerals.

There is already too much death in Swaziland. 

We deal with severe malnutrition and extreme poverty.  Rape and abuse is a common occurrence and it often comes from those closest to the victims.  Life is tough here under the best of circumstances.

There is already too much death in Swaziland. 

Our community shouldn’t have to deal with pain of losing two toddlers on top of everything else.

I have read the Bible cover-to-cover and spent years studying scripture.  I have a degree in Religious Studies and another in Biblical Studies.  I have spent years teaching and counseling people about God and his work in the world.  But with all that knowledge, I still can’t even begin to answer the question of why things like this happen.  What Nakiwe, Felix, and their families are going through is more than anyone should every have to endure.  We simply cannot justify it or explain it; to even try is insincere and crass. All we can do is mourn and comfort each other in whatever small way we can.

During our time of grieving with the family, Sister Diane had this to say:

Times like these are a great mystery, and while we may never have an answer for the pain we feel, one thing never changes: God has eternal and perfect love for all people.

True comfort will never come in our circumstances, it can only come in understanding and living out the perfect love of God.  It doesn’t answer the question and it doesn’t end our heartache, but hopefully that perspective can help to shape our trajectory in life – even in the midst of pain.

 [Nakiwe, Sisandza,Tandziso and Felix Mabuza at the Feast of St. Philips] 

I have commented before on the craziness that is the Swazi Media.  Well today, I wanted to pass along a clipping from the Classified section of the Swazi Times (the most popular paper in the country). 

As you may know, a majority of Swazis visit traditional healers either instead of or in conjunction with western medicine.  This can include everything from "throwing bones" to consulting the spirits to taking herbal remedies to casting spells.  Most of these traditional healers (often incorrectly called witch-doctors) take a spiritual / magical approach to issues.  However, as you can see from these classified, the issues they often work on rarely have to do with spiritual (or even medical) issues. [Click the image for a larger view]

So, if you need assistance with a "week erection" or are looking for "a specialist in warts and womb cleansing" then look no further than your local Swazi traditional healer – conveniently advertized in the classified section.

This has to be my personal favorite (words in brackets mine):

My muthi [magic] is your answer.  It stops your relationship from breaking apart.  Put him/her under your feet, listen to everything you say [ahh yes… using oppression and subjugation to solve marital disputes].  To apologies when she/he is wrong by using emindi smoke remote control. [I wonder if works even if he/she is not wrong… it’s worth a shot… after all, who couldn’t use some remote-control smoke.]

But, I want to be fair… these listings are more indicative of the newspaper they are in than the overall profession of traditional healer.  The organization I work with regular collaborates with traditional healers, and while there are certainly some who are way out there, most are people whose view on the world is simply shaped by their cultural experiences and expectations.

Anyway, I thought you all would appreciate one of those "Only in Swaziland" insights.

A friend of mine asked me the other day what I thought was the biggest problem with religions in the world (not just Christianity or religion in America).  Here is what I said:

Religion exists to help explain the world and our purpose in it.  Religions become problematic when instead of offering cohesion to chaos they create their own chaos.

What do you think?  Too simplistic?  What am I missing?

The following statement was issued by Lindsey Davis, the Bishop of the Kentucky United Methodist Conference.   Bishop Davis provides a well reasoned response to the issue of immigration in this nation and I felt it deserved a reading far beyond just Kentucky Methodists.  It is reposted with permission.

A Pastoral Letter from Bishop Davis

My grandson is six years old and a kindergarten student at Veterans Park Elementary in Lexington. Veterans Park is a Chinese Language Immersion school. So he is learning a second language while he is also learning to read and write English. Such is the world in which we live. We live in a nation that is very diverse and rapidly changing.

Immigrants are a part of our current reality. They make up 15% of the work force in our nation, and it is estimated that a third of these persons are undocumented. They work jobs many others don’t want, sometimes two and three jobs at a time. They do it on the cheap so that their children will have a better life. They use services like hospitals and schools. They also pay taxes which contribute to those public services.

Like most issues, immigration is complex. If there were simple solutions, our nation would have employed them by now. Sure, it would be great if everyone were here legally. It would be helpful if our borders were secure. It would be wonderful if our immigration service was not a disaster. It would be great if other nations had economies robust enough to support their citizens so that leaving home was not so attractive. Public policy has to deal with how things are, not always how things ought to be. Immigration legislation in Frankfort is currently being considered, and I have some deep concerns about what direction these efforts will take.

I certainly don’t claim to be an expert on immigration issues. But here are a few things I do know.

1. We have many immigrants in our United Methodist Churches. Some are documented and some are not. They love the Lord and they love our church. They are my people and I will stand for them and with them during these current debates.

2. Scripture is very clear. We are to treat with love, care and generosity those who are strangers and sojourners among us. I take this biblical mandate very seriously. It would be a mistake for our state to criminalize the ministry of churches which feed the hungry, clothe the naked and reach out to the poor.

3. Immigration reform is needed but on a federal level. Individual attempts by states will, in my opinion, not be helpful. In fact, it will be very costly.

On our website you can find several source documents which will help you understand some of the complexities of this issue. Let us all be in prayer for our legislative leaders. They have a difficult job and are in need of our prayerful support and encouragement in these days to come. And, as we consider these issues, may our speech and actions take place “as if we were in the immediate presence of God.”

Here are resources pertaining to our stance on immigration issues:

United Methodist Book of Resolutions 2008 – Statement on Immigration

United Methodist Church Council of Bishops – Statement on the U.S. Immigration Situation

Kentucky Council of Churches – Immigration Reform Statement

Click here to email your state legislator.

Last week at church we ended a 1.5 month sermon series on the Kingdom of God by discussing what it means to participate in the Kingdom; one of the passages we looked at was Mat 20:1-16, the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard.  The main point is that in the Kingdom everyone is compensated fairly, but not necessarily equally.

That reminded me of an article I had read recently about the link between pastor’s salaries and church growth:

The researchers examined whether pastors earned more in years when their churches saw congregations grow and their pay suffer if membership declined. It turns out United Methodist congregations gave their leaders a $15 boost (in 2008 dollars) on average for each new member added (about 3 percent of new revenues generated from the membership increase) and cut their pay by about $7 for each member lost.

[You can read the whole article here on Slate: The Almighty Dollar: Are preachers motivated by the desire to save souls or to make cold, hard cash?]

Things like this give me great pause as I ponder what is the most faithful, biblical, and fair way to handle financial compensation for those working in the church.

I have long stated that people in ministry should not expect to make more than the average household income for the community they are called to serve (That is a bit over $30K here in Warren County).  Of course I don’t see that as a hard-fast rule, but rather as a starting point; in fact, I struggle with the idea of pastors getting paid at all – but that is for another post.

In a multiple-staff situation things get even more complex.  What is fair compensation for everyone when we are willing to think about it “Kingdom” terms?  Here are a few models I think we can consider:

• Compensate based on “market” value – unfortunately this is the way most churches operate without even considering other options.  This approach forces a business mindset and causes people to think about “moving up the ladder.”
• Compensate equally – pay everyone the same wage regardless of their position.  The full time janitor makes the same as the senior pastor.
• Compensate based on skills / training – a cross between the two approaches above.  The doctor makes more than the M.Div who makes more than M.A. who makes more than the college grad… This approach doesn’t value one role over another, but does reward people who made the financial / educational sacrifices to be better prepared.  You could easily extend this thinking to compensate for years of work, additional training / skill sets, etc.
• Compensate based on need – The young married couple has less financial need than the single father living with his two kids, or the older lady who has high medical expenses and is taking care of her parents.  This approach is the most selfless of all, but the hardest to implement.

These questions are especially difficult (and important) when you start working through real situations.  I came from a multiple-staff church where how you answer the “fair compensation” question would have major impact on people.  We had a 5:1 pay ratio (the highest paid full-time staff member made at least 5 times what the lowest paid full-time staff member made), a wide variety of education levels (High School educated up to M.Div and everything in between), a huge span of years of service (fresh into ministry up to several decades), and an extremely diverse set of living situations (stable married couples without kids, up to individuals with major medical expenses and other extenuating circumstances).

I don’t think there is a right answer to these questions (although I do think there are plenty of wrong ways to handle it).  The big problem is that people generally refuse to discuss these matters.  If you want to know the quickest way to shut people up in a staff meeting, then just suggest you talk about salaries.

It is generally assumed that all churches will take the first approach and simply pay based on market value.  The problem with this is that is short-circuits meaningful discussions about the theology of ministry and the call to live by "Kingdom" standards.  People in ministry are paid through the tithes and offerings of people who believe they are contributing to God’s work.  At a minimum, we all should expect those in ministry to think long and hard about what is the best use of God’s finances when it comes to compensating staff fairly.

When you take the "market value" approach to ministry it forces you to only look inward.  All of the other approaches require ministers to contemplate the Kingdom as a whole and also to consider the situation and contributions of those they serve with.  It is not easy, but I think all of our churches would be better off if we at least entertained the question.

A church where the senior pastor makes the same as (or less than) the janitor would certainly turn a few heads, and I am convinced it is a more accurate implementation of the lessons from Matthew 20.  Just imagine how strong a church’s witness could be if they compensated based on Kingdom standards instead of worldly value.  It would certainly force people to take the message of the Kingdom of God serious if ministers were willing to "step out on faith" and change the way they viewed their salaries.

How can we expect those in the church to earnestly seek their place in the work in the Kingdom, if we do not evaluate some of these basic and essential questions about how the church operates.

Thoughts?

After posting a few quick thoughts on power and the nature of the Christian gospel, I found this quote from Søren Kierkegaard, the Danish Theologian.  [Emphasis mine]

When preaching the gospel became a livelihood, even a lush livelihood, then the gospel became good news for the rich and for the mighty. For how else was the preacher to acquire and secure rank and dignity unless Christianity secured the best for all? Christianity thus ceased to be glad tidings for those who suffer, a message of hope that transfigures suffering into joy, but a guarantee for the enjoyment of life intensified and secured by the hope of eternity.

The gospel no longer benefits the poor essentially. In fact Christianity has now even become a downright injustice to those who suffer (although we are not always conscious of this and certainly unwilling to admit it.) Today the gospel is preached to the rich, the powerful, who have discovered it to be advantageous. We are right back again to the very state original Christianity wanted to oppose! The rich and powerful not only get to keep everything, but their success becomes the mark of their piety, the sign of their relationship to God. And this prompts the old atrocity again – namely, the idea that the unfortunate, the poor are to blame for their condition; that it is because they are poor, whereas the rich have not only pleasure but piety as well. This is supposed to be Christianity. Compare it with the New Testament, and you will see that it is as far from that as possible.

Even though this was written over 150 years ago, it rings all the more true today.  The message of the gospel is hope for the weak, not comfort for the privileged; it is restoration of the broken, not security for the empowered.

The church who panders to the powerful and caters to the upper class is nothing but a whore: trading the sanctity of the Good News of the Kingdom of God for a false sense of affirmation and well-being.

Throughout Scripture there are some dominate themes regarding power:

• God holds power but entrusts it to humanity.
• Dominate (oppressive) power structures are always subverted.
• The coming of the Kingdom of God results in the weak gaining power and prestige.
• Power comes in weakness and sacrifice, not through dominance.

The examples of this are endless:

• Jacob was the weaker, younger brother but fathered the 12 tribes of Israel.
• King David was the runt of the bunch but became the most powerful King.
• Gideon was chosen as a warrior leader because he was the least of those available; furthermore his army was culled to exclude the strongest.
• Jesus was not a conquering King, but lived a submissive, sacrificial life.
• The disciples were not leaders or scholars, they were regular guys entrusted with the future of the church.

The list goes on…

Despite this clear trajectory of power (re)distribution in the Kingdom, we still live in a day and time where the rich and the educated and the privileged lead the way.

What pains me the most is when scripture is used to justify and embolden the (oppressive) power structures – especially when it happens in the church.

When will we learn?  It is time for educated, rich, white, western males to step down and learn from those on the fringe.  I am convinced the gospel and Christianity can only truly makes sense when it includes and is led by those society has overlooked and disenfranchised.

My friend Terry posted a quick blog entry the other day on similar issues.  You can read it here.

The following is taken from a 2004 lecture/discussion with Emergent Village by Walter Brueggemman.  You can find video of the sessions on their site.  (HT also to Prodigal Kiwi and soupablog).

1. Everybody lives by a script. The script may be implicit or explicit. It may be recognized or unrecognized, but everybody has a script.
2. We get scripted. All of us get scripted through the process of nurture and formation and socialization, and it happens to us without our knowing it.
3. The dominant scripting in our society is a script of technological, therapeutic, consumer militarism that socializes us all, liberal and conservative.
4. That script (technological, therapeutic, consumer militarism) enacted through advertising and propaganda and ideology, especially on the liturgies of television, promises to make us safe and to make us happy.
5. That script has failed. That script of military consumerism cannot make us safe and it cannot make us happy. We may be the unhappiest society in the world.
6. Health for our society depends upon disengagement from and relinquishment of that script of military consumerism. This is a disengagement and relinquishment that we mostly resist and about which we are profoundly ambiguous.
7. It is the task of ministry to de-script that script among us. That is, too enable persons to relinquish a world that no longer exists and indeed never did exist.
8. The task of de-scripting, relinquishment and disengagement is accomplished by a steady, patient, intentional articulation of an alternative script that we say can make us happy and make us safe.
9. The alternative script is rooted in the Bible and is enacted through the tradition of the Church. It is an offer of a counter-narrative, counter to the script of technological, therapeutic, consumer militarism.
10. That alternative script has as its most distinctive feature, its key character – the God of the Bible whom we name as Father, Son, and Spirit.
11. That script is not monolithic, one dimensional or seamless. It is ragged and disjunctive and incoherent. Partly it is ragged and disjunctive and incoherent because it has been crafted over time by many committees. But it is also ragged and disjunctive and incoherent because the key character is illusive and irascible in freedom and in sovereignty and in hiddenness, and, I’m embarrassed to say, in violence – [a] huge problem for us.
12. The ragged, disjunctive, and incoherent quality of the counter-script to which we testify cannot be smoothed or made seamless. [I think the writer of Psalm 119 would probably like too try, to make it seamless]. Because when we do that the script gets flattened and domesticated. [This is my polemic against systematic theology]. The script gets flattened and domesticated and it becomes a weak echo of the dominant script of technological, consumer militarism. Whereas the dominant script of technological, consumer militarism is all about certitude, privilege, and entitlement this counter-script is not about certitude, privilege, and entitlement. Thus care must betaken to let this script be what it is, which entails letting God be God’s irascible self.
13. The ragged, disjunctive character of the counter-script to which we testify invites its adherents to quarrel among themselves – liberals and conservatives – in ways that detract from the main claims of the script and so too debilitate the focus of the script.
14. The entry point into the counter-script is baptism. Whereby we say in the old liturgies, “do you renounce the dominant script?”
15. The nurture, formation, and socialization into the counter-script with this illusive, irascible character is the work of ministry. We do that work of nurture, formation, and socialization by the practices of preaching, liturgy, education, social action, spirituality, and neighboring of all kinds.
16. Most of us are ambiguous about the script; those with whom we minister and I dare say, those of us who minister. Most of us are not at the deepest places wanting to choose between the dominant script and the counter-script. Most of us in the deep places are vacillating and mumbling in ambivalence.
17. This ambivalence between scripts is precisely the primary venue for the Spirit. So that ministry is to name and enhance the ambivalence that liberals and conservatives have in common that puts people in crisis and consequently that invokes resistance and hostility.
18. Ministry is to manage that ambivalence that is crucially present among liberals and conservatives in generative faithful ways in order to permit relinquishment of [the] old script and embrace of the new script.
19. The work of ministry is crucial and pivotal and indispensable in our society precisely because there is no one [see if that’s an overstatement]; there is no one except the church and the synagogue to name and evoke the ambivalence and too manage a way through it. I think often; I see the mundane day-to-day stuff ministers have to do and I think, my God, what would happen if you talk all the ministers out. The role of ministry then is as urgent as it is wondrous and difficult.

There is outrage in this country, but I fear it for the wrong reason.

A story just broke this week which revealed the weapons company Trijicon has been branding their military rifle scopes with Bible verses.  I have included one such example below.  The ACOG4X32 model number ends with "JN8:12" – a reference to verse 8:12 in the New Testament Gospel of John.  The fear is that this constitutes "proselytizing" and thus is outside the regulations.  People have been outraged that such blatant Christian influence was allowed to find its place in our military.

Oh believe me I am upset by this, but not for the same reasons the ACLU is upset.  It is more likely someone will convert to being a fan of Nashville Hockey by flying an unmanned drone than it is someone will become a Christian after using these sights.  What is frustrating to me is how offensive this juxtaposition of worldviews is.  In John 8: 12 Jesus says:

I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.

That is written on the side of a device used so you can see people more clearly so that you can kill them.  Does anyone else see how screwed up that was?

The entire life, death and resurrection of Jesus points to a life of non-violence and sacrificial subversion.  Jesus embodies love, grace and mercy, yet his words are used to brand an instrument of war and destruction.

We might as well name our next warship the USS Martin Luther King Jr. or put a picture of Ghandi on our nuclear weapons.  I am not worried Muslims will be offended by this verse on the side of a rifle scope.  I fear they will be upset when we use this rifle scope to kill them. 

I guess I must admit that I do fear proselytizing, but not in the way many have expressed.  I am not worried about people sharing their faith in Christianity through verses written on a scope.  I fear people will continue to be converted to this false gospel that the way of Jesus is one of force and privilege.  I fear people will convert to seeing an American Jesus and ignore his radical message of peace, love and non-violence even in the face of oppression and persecution.

Trijicon messed up when they put this verse on their product.  Not because it broke military regulations, but because they have grossly misrepresented the savior they have claimed to serve.