Biblical View of Drinking Wine

One of those controversial issues in the church is the question of whether Christians should drink wine or any alcoholic drink. The church in our culture has experienced a tremendous shift in the past century. Before my time, but not that long ago in the span of history, Christians led the ‘temperance movement’ which in the USA was a movement to ban all consumption of alcohol. In fact between the two world wars it led to prohibition and a very violent period of illegal making and selling of liquor. In places like Australia the temperance movement was one of promoting moderation rather than abstinence. But the movement left its footprint in other nations like Great Britain, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, and others.
Today the church in our culture has a wide range of views about alcohol. I attended a Presbyterian church in Denver that was promoting its ‘Wine & Roses’ Valentines event. It was planned as a February 14th social to invite their non-churched friends. I know of a home Bible study group that developed a ‘wine study—Bible tasting’ evening to encourage their non-Christian friends to consider being part of a Bible study group. In some conservative corners of the evangelical church that would be considered anathema. My father-in-law still argues that when Jesus changed the water into wine (John 2) that it was non-alcoholic. He obviously has overlooked the steward’s assessment of bringing out the “cheaper wine when the guests have had too much to drink” (effect of too much alcohol) and “saved the best till now” (implying the kind of good wine that they used at the beginning of the wedding feast).
 In many parts of the world the national church takes a strong stand against drinking alcohol because of the problems of drunkenness in their society. When I served in Ethiopia I experienced the tension of ministering to professionals who drank wine with their meals as a common practice and the national church which came out of a rural society of significant alcohol abuse. They prohibited any form of drinking, which meant when working with that church (KHC)we needed to abstain from any form of alcohol.
 For me the question became more personal as our children reached adulthood. In their Christian community drinking a beer or having wine with a meal was quite acceptable. What would be our position as parents? Should we teach total abstinence as a preventative against the alcohol abuse of their culture or should we teach moderation with biblical guidelines? We chose the latter though I think an argument could be made for either position.
So how do I construct a biblical view for drinking wine or any alcoholic drink?
I would begin with Luke 7:33-35 where Jesus is citing the characterization of John the Baptist and himself. “John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking (i.e. wine) and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of sinners.’” Jesus is not admitting to being a drunkard but to drinking wine, and it gave the Pharisees the opportunity of accusing him of being a friend of sinners.
Deuteronomy 14:26 says, “Use your silver to buy…wine and other fermented drink.” The reason was to enjoy what God has given us and to eat in the presence of the Lord with joy. Our action was to rejoice before him.
Leviticus 23:13 describes wine as a ‘drink offering’ – the act of pouring it out was used to celebrate before the Lord. It was God’s provision of life and it was a reminder of his goodness.
Leviticus 10:9 warns the priests not to drink wine or fermented drink when going into the Tent of Meeting. It didn’t prohibit their drinking. It prohibited the ‘when’ and ‘where’ of drinking.
Paul, writing to the Ephesian church, says: “Do not be drunk with wine which leads to debauchery.” His prohibition was against drunkenness – losing control of one’s senses through excessive drinking.
Writing to the Corinthian church Paul rebukes them for coming to the agape meal and eating without concern that others had enough to eat or getting drunk from excessive use of wine. He was basically saying that their coming together for the meal and celebrating the Lord’s Table was to be done with concern for the good of others, for celebrating Christ, and not for your selfish interests.
Paul even instructs Timothy to “stop drinking only water and use a little wine for your stomach sake” (1 Tim 5:23). He was saying what science now tells us that there may be some health benefits to drinking wine when done in moderation.
 So what are the guidelines that I use for drinking wine or ‘other fermented drink’?
 1.Wine is an acceptable joy of life if done as a celebration before the Lord. If what you do in your drinking does not glorify the Lord then do not drink. By that I mean, if it puts you in a place or leads to a behavior that dishonors the Lord then abstain.
 2.Drinking wine or any alcohol should never lead to getting drunk. Drinking is not a sin – drunkenness is. Always beware that the loss of control leads to the loss of good character – and the loss of morals and godliness, of right behavior, etc. etc.
3.Drinking wine is for the home and not the church. There are right and wrong places and times. Old Testament priests were warned not drink before going to serve in the tabernacle. The Corinthian church was rebuked for getting drunk at the agape meal and Lord’s Table. Paul said: “Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in.” Enjoying your wine in the setting of home or social event with friends seems to be the proper venue. A place or time for the sole purpose of drinking is an abuse of God’s gift of joy. It is the wrong venue.
4.Recognize the boundaries of eating and drinking. In writing in Romans 14 Paul calls these “disputable matters” and that we should not do it if it causes a weaker brother to stumble. For those new believers coming out of a background of alcohol abuse the boundary is ‘no drinking’ – abstain when with them. If in a culture where drunkenness is a problem and working with a church coming out of that culture, then don’t drink when ministering in that relationship. Disputable matters are settled for the good of others. Wisdom is knowing the ‘when’ and ‘where.’
5.Drinking wine has benefits – for health and for adding joy to life. A little wine can actually be good for your heart and digestion and enhance the taste of your food. To drink for the sake of numbing the senses or to ‘get bombed’ dishonors the Lord. I recall telling my son, “If you drink, drink for taste not distraction.” Enjoy a good wine with your meal. Celebrate God’s goodness with your friends. Anything less is an abuse of God’s provision.
So my summary is this: There was no shame in Jesus making wine. There should be no shame in my drinking of wine. Paul’s guideline is the best. “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all to the glory of God.” (1 Cor. 10:31)

Multi-Cultural
Churches
Conference
Findings





On November 26, 2010 ACTS Seminaries (at Trinity Western University) brought together about forty representatives from five denominations to discover “best practices of effective multi-ethnic congregations.” The day began with an overview of the challenge for multi-cultural churches by Canadian Baptist Seminary president Arnell Motz. It was then followed by case studies of the five denominations presenting various models and experiences so as to learn from each other in this new territory of ministry.

• Canadian society is becoming predominantly multi-ethnic which means the church, God’s harvest force, must take seriously its commitment to this new harvest field.
In 2006 the foreign-born population consisted of just over 6.5 million persons and accounted for 19.8% of the Canadian population. By 2031 it is projected that the proportion of the Canadian population consisting of foreign-born persons would reach between 25% and 28%. This would be the highest proportion of foreign-born persons since Confederation. By 2031 it is also projected that between 29% and 32% of the population will be a visible minority.


As an example of the changing metropolitan centers, by 2031 the Vancouver population will be 59.2% from a visible minority, more than half of the population will belong to either a non-Christian religious group (20.8%) or no religious group (32.6%).
The greatest growth in non-Christian religious groups will come from those who are Muslim. In 2001 there were 580,000 Muslims and by 2031 it is expected there will be 2,870,000 Muslims, an increase of nearly 400% in 30 years. If we are to take the Great Commission seriously then we need to be asking – how do we as the church respond to this new harvest field?

• Although many churches have multiple nationalities, they are not intentionally multi-cultural. For the sake of mission we need to distinguish between “multi-colored congregations” and “multi-cultural” congregations.
The choice of terms marks the difference between assimilation and accommodation. Assimilation is merely integrating various ethnicities into a common ‘host’ culture or church thus minimizing or ignoring distinctions. Accommodation allows for some distinctions and special interests of various groups within the church and includes people from various ethnicities as equal partners.
One case study of accommodation was Willingdon Church, Burnaby. In their model they have twelve ethnic ministries that participate together in a common worship service with live translation in their language. However other ministries for that particular ethnic group will be in their own language with their own pastor. They were careful to add that each ethnic pastor sits on the elder board not to look out for the concerns of their own ethnic congregation but for the concerns of the church total.

• Preaching must be culturally sensitive in use of illustrations; also tactful yet truthful in talking about other religions.
In our use of the English language we pepper our speech with idioms and dry humor making it difficult to be trans-cultural. Bernard Mukwavi of Fleetwood International Church related how his preaching must be very direct and descriptive with minimum idioms. For those with English as a second language phrases such as “pepper our speech” or “not on our radar screen” might not be understood.
The other consideration is references to other religions. We need to speak respectfully yet truthfully about their religion because, for those who are seekers visiting our churches, their culture is intimately intertwined with their religion. On the other hand, this does not mean ignoring differences because at some point their beliefs need to find a point of contrast with the gospel.

• Multi-cultural churches come in various models and sizes – no one model fits all.
There are though some common features such as: Sharing ethnic meals, actively celebrating ethnic events and heritages, displaying national flags and other practical evidences of our heritages (one church noted over fifty countries were represented by their flags and dress), use of various cultural forms in worship or languages in prayer. Some churches even did signage in various languages. Most presented bi-lingual Bibles, when possible, to newcomers.

• Most of the churches had written and adopted core values that specifically noted their commitment to multi-ethnicity.
This was needed to keep the multi-cultural mission before their people. Some intentionally reflected the multi-cultural mission in the name of the church.

• Successful churches are ones which promote an “ownership” model rather than a “landlord” model of ethnic ministries.
The landlord model treats the ethnic congregation as renters. The ownership model seeks to build a sense of mutual responsibility for the governance and koinonia of the church. Even though there will often be a “host culture” that provides the platform and building, the intent is to help both the host and the newcomers to share a sense of ownership together.

The challenge:
While we all have tendencies towards ethnocentrism (viewing one’s own culture as the center of everything) our values as Christ followers are to be centered in God’s kingdom. What we share together here on earth is to be a fore-taste of what we will experience in the grand scene of Revelation 7 when people of every tribe and tongue will be gathered around the throne of God in celebration. It is with that vision that we step into this multi-cultural harvest field before us.

A Compelling Cause for Seminary Education

As I look over the landscape of the Christian church in North America I have great concern. The statistics say that two-thirds of our churches are not growing, a little less than half are actually declining. Western culture is becoming less receptive to the gospel, or in the words of Leslie Newbigin “is proving resistant to the gospel.” Samuel Escobar describes our traditional mission organizations with words such as “becoming tired” and “stifling” while spontaneous mission movements of the ‘southern church’ (Latin America, Africa and Asia) as exemplifying a new passion for mission and the work of the Holy Spirit that is breathing life into the church.

Overall, I share similar concerns for the North American church yet I see new churches being planted that are attracting the twenty-something eneration who want to be part of missional movement in their communities and in the world. I see hundreds of thousands join short-term teams for mission ventures to the hurting of the world because they want to make a difference in the world. While I may impugn the self-serving nature of much of those efforts I must recognize that the motivation behind it is good and needs leadership to give it better direction.

So what should be the role of the seminary in cultivating healthy leadership and passionate vision? First of all, I think the seminary must accept the mantle of being the facilitator for leadership development. That is not to say that leadership cannot be developed through other means outside of a seminary. We can all point to wonderful leaders who were shaped by things other than formal education, but the seminary still has a vital role to play as a catalyst for biblical thinking and spiritual renewal. We need to accept that role with humility and determination.

Second, we need to re-examine our model for equipping leaders to be sure we are giving effort to needed areas and not just lip service. It seems to me that key outcomes of seminary education should be:
• Theological thinker
• Cultural analyst
• Relevant communicator
• Missional activist
• Leadership developer
• Spiritual mentor

If those are to be strategic areas of equipping then we need to examine the curriculum of our programs and the praxis of our curriculum to see if it is producing those kinds of leaders. Without each of those areas being addressed with a new determination the church morphs into something traditional and stifling, something less than what the Holy Spirit wants to use.

So what is the compelling cause for our seminaries? It is to breathe new life into Western Christianity by developing healthy leaders and healthy mission movements. It is to re-shape our programs not just to make theologians and preachers but leaders who are able to lead with a sense of mission in a resistant culture. It is to inspire a new generation of Christ-followers who like the ‘southern church’ live passionately live out the gospel of Christ. It is in doing this that we find a compelling cause for our existence.

Vision 2010

'Vision' is a great word. It can motivate when it touches a concern, it can intimidate when it makes one feel that we are not doing enough. But I still like the word. When I was younger I loved to cast a vision and set a path to achieving that vision. Now that I am older the cynical side of me squelches such thinking before the spark even has a chance to fan a flame. That is too bad.

And then I came across the vision statement of "Christ for the City" - a ministry based in Costa Rica and desiring to impact the Spanish-speaking world. It's vision is simple...
__No place without testimony
__No church without vision
__No person without hope

The cynical response is - no church or ministry can achieve that. And I agree. But what a great vision to work at. So I have decided to write my personal vision statement of what I will ask God to let me work at in this coming year (or years). It will be a vision of God building a missions program at Bethel Seminary that will be accessible from any part of the world and taking students to every part of the world. It will be adaptive to the needs of the individual student in terms of personal growth and equipping for ministry. It will be small in terms of full-time faculty but huge in terms of the practical experience contributed by faculty working in their field. It will throw off the caste-system of academic institutions which sets forth a hierarchy of status and in its place will be the status of being the priesthood of believers and the community of fellow pilgrims. It will...

I think I am tired already! Great words, but can we really do it? That's when I realized what the essential ingredient of vision is. It is asking - "What will I ask God to do in the next year or five years that only God can do?" So when he does enable us to reach that goal then he alone gets the glory. Yes! That is what vision is all about. It is getting us into the adventure zone of faith in what God can do and what brings him glory! (I'm feeling young again.)

Christmas - the first 'insider movement'

If you want a lively discussion about missions today try the topic of “insider movements” as it relates to Muslims, Buddhists or Hindus. The general idea is, how much can you retain of the culture/religious forms without becoming syncretistic with that religion? We even have a scale of C1 to C6 which rates complete separation from religious cultural forms on the C1 side to the other extreme of C6 which retains outward cultural forms while holding secretly to Christian beliefs. C1 often adopts Western forms of church and dress. C6 would have Muslim-background believers doing prayers in the mosque and observing all the feasts and fasts of the Muslim faith while secretly holding to the Christian faith.

Without launching into a discussion of the reasons for and against ‘insider movements’ it should be obvious that there are pitfalls to both extremes which then means there are reasons to consider something of a mediating position between the two. Embracing the Lordship of Christ is believing the truth of everything Jesus claimed to be and do. It does not necessarily mean embracing the culture of the messenger or the culture into which the message was given. Biblical faith does not mean adopting American culture or Middle Eastern culture but adopting truth that transforms the person in their own culture. And it is for that reason we should consider the need for an insider movement strategy as to how we do missions.

I find it interesting that our Christmas season and celebrations represent one of the first insider movements of the Christian faith. We have long heard it debated whether the first Christmas really happened on December 25 and whether Christians just adopted a pagan festival of the sun god and pagan customs. While I don’t think anyone has proof of when the first Christmas really took place, history gives more evidence that the early church celebrated Christmas around the date of January 6 which became known as Epiphany (‘to reveal’). In the Eastern Orthodox Church Epiphany marked the baptism of Jesus by John, the revelation of Christ’s person and ministry and also the time when the three Wiseman were suppose to have visited the Christ child.

The Roman culture into which Christianity emerged was polytheistic. An important figure in their religion was Sol Invictus – the prominent sun deity. Constantine, whether by political astuteness or by religious conversion (some say he did not convert until on his deathbed in 337 when he was baptized ) made Christianity a recognized religion along with the other religions and then made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire. In 320 AD before Christianity had the sole status as the state religion Constantine decreed December 25 to be day of Christmas. It was also the celebration of Sol Invictus, which politically was an astute move by Constantine but put the church in a dilemma. Does it rebel against the official position or against culture or does it try to convert culture?

The church chose to embrace December 25 as the day of Christmas , not as syncretism with pagan beliefs, but to ‘win the day’ against paganism. There is no evidence that the intention was to incorporate pagan beliefs but rather to convert a pagan celebration with Christian meaning. And in that sense they were successful. The recognition of Sol Invictus faded from culture and Christmas with its Christ-story took center stage. So then it really was the first ‘insider movement’ of the Christian church.

As we step back from this period of history we can also see the adverse effects of syncretism when Constantine forced mass baptisms and wholesale conversions to Christianity. In my mind that does not make Christmas pagan nor does it argue for a C1 position of insider movements. We must constantly separate biblical truth from our cultural context. As in the case of the Muslim insider movement, worshipping on Fridays instead of Sunday, or worshipping in a church with pews or praying in the sitting position versus kneeling with one’s face to the ground are all cultural forms. It is the gospel of Christ that must be defended for its veracity and uniqueness, not the cultural forms. Christians can utilize pagan forms such as the day chosen for Christmas or the evergreen tree as a symbol of Christmas as long as it brings the observer to the new meaning in the Lordship of Christ and rejection of the old meaning in the paganism of one’s past.

In that sense, Christmas was an insider movement and as a holiday it should remind us of the impact that Christian beliefs can have on society and that the gospel can have in transforming lives.

Why Hermeneutics Needs Intercultural Studies

I am of the opinion that good theological education needs intercultural studies. I was reminded of this when one of my esteemed colleagues gave a Christmas devotional in which he referred to the “inn” of Jesus’ birth as “probably being a guest room in the home of a relative.” The reason is because the word ‘KATALUMA’ in Luke 2:7 can mean (1) ‘inn’ such as a lodging place, or (2) a ‘guest-room’ attached to a home. My point is that an understanding of Middle East culture would never allow a relative (especially one about to deliver a baby at any moment) to be relegated to a stable for a delivery room. It would be unthinkable if you see it through their cultural eyes, because family is valued above personal good. So I would say that the possibility of the ‘KATALUMA’ being in the home of a relative is nigh impossible. The relative would sleep on the floor, even in the stable, in order to provide for Mary who was about to deliver.
Another example would be Mark 3:31 where Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived at a home where a crowd had gathered to hear Jesus. They had come to “take charge of him” because they had heard people saying that “He is out of his mind.” Why did they send someone else into the house to get him rather than go in themselves? If you see it from the cultural perspective of not wanting to shame him and desiring to speak to him in private then you can better understand the account.
So then, hermeneutics should look at the possible interpretations but cultural understanding gives perspective to the interpretation and even shapes the interpretation.

The New Paternalism

Mistakes in missions have a strange way of reproducing themselves. Take 'paternalism' as an example. In days gone by paternalism showed itself by the foreigner creating a dependency of nationals on foreign fmissionaries. Sometimes it was done with the best of intentions but it was still paternalism in the way that it created dependency on foreign leadership.
We are now in a new day of missions where we have shed any vesture of colonialism and feeling quite proud of our models of equality and partnership. The fact is, we have come a long ways in living out the brotherhood of believers across cultural and national borders. But my question is, have we slipped into a 'new paternalism' not by making nationals dependent on our leadership but on our funding. Tens of thousands of evangelists in India receive their salaries from supporters in North America. Thousands of short-term teams go to majority world (Third-World by old terms) churches and paint walls or bring money for local projects with the best of intentions, but are still creating a dependency on the foreigners money.
So what has changed?