Text and Context Conference: Session 8, Jim Gilmore
Last night, after the stimulating Q&A with Piper, Driscoll, and Chandler, I enjoyed a night of conference and beverage digestion with three of my buddies from my year-and-a-half stint at Whitworth College (Steve Hart, Lukas Naugle, and Campbell White). We talked late into the night at Brouwers, a classy beer bar with over 60 beers on tap. If you’re ever in Seattle, check out Brouwers. Last night’s knowledgeable bartender served me what he calls “the best beer in the world,” St. Bernardus Abt 12 (PS. for those of you who are reading this who don’t know me/who have different convictions about alcohol, know that I handle such beverages in obedience to 1 Corinthians 10:31).
Today, the final day of the Text & Context Conference, began with a message from Jim Gilmore, Decoding the Future, the Phoniness and the Shifting Sands. I found Jim’s message difficult to follow. Some of that was Jim and some of that was me, as I was sitting next to Steve Hart and Abraham Piper and kept asking Abraham questions about his work with the Desiring God blog. Here are a few scattered notes from Gilmore’s session:
- “Today, the dominant source that’s distorting the gospel is business…don’t let the church become a business. We have nothing to sell. What we have has already been purchased by the blood of Jesus.”
- Gilmore commended Stan Davis’ book, Future Perfect, written in 1986, as the best business book ever written, a book that pastors would benefit from reading. The book is built upon the thesis: “The present is the past of the future.”
- Innovators in the market place have a different time orientation, they act as if the future is already here. As pastors, your beliefs about the future should influence your decisions today.
I’m not quite sure where to start but here it goes. I’ve been following the blogs and listening to the sermons of the likes of pastor Dever, Piper, Driscoll, Mahaney and I’m assuming that you would be, in simple terms, in the same camp as they in terms of theology and doctrinal stance (high view of Christology, substitutionary atonement). If not, then you can delete this email and forget that I’m writing this. I’ve viewed this camp of Christianity (I myself am one) with a lot of respect; for example, the high regard for God’s word is personally very challenging. But there’s a flavor among not only these pastors but people who are in the same camp that seem to display a subtle, if not, blatant concern over the whole megachurch movement. Some of the opinions I agree, some of them I don’t. I guess what is triggering this comment and I’m sorry if it feels like I’m picking on you, but it’s the way you used in your words – “who don’t know me/who have different convictions about alcohol, know that I handle such beverages in obedience to 1 Corinthians 10:31″ – to qualify, maybe even justify the fact that you drink beer. For someone in the megachurch movement, someone could have used the same justification – you don’t know me, you have different convictions, may use a verse to justify why they’re pastoring a megachurch. It seems to me that there is an inconsistent criteria that is being used when discerning and judging whatever the situation may be at hand – in this case, you drinking beer versus the megachurch movement. Again, I agree with and have an utmost respect for the lack of a better word, the camp of Christians that you are a part of. But at the same time, your justification of why you drink beer is okay but when it comes to the megachurch movement, it’s almost as if they’re not even Christian at all. It’s not just you but it’s what I’ve been noticing in other blog writers of the same camp – they have a high view of Christology, substitutionary atonement and the like and yet their beliefs, doctrinal stance if you will, and, at the same time, shows a lack of discernment when it comes to something like embracing the culture (in your case drinking beer) but on the other hand, they use the pulpit and the blogosphere to condemn the whole megachurch movement. Granted that there are some of those churches that are not even in the ballpark when it comes to what the gospel is, the criticisms of other churches, I find the use of the pulpit and conferences as disproportionate given the inconsistency or the divorce of one’s beliefs with the manifestation of those very beliefs in one’s life. Personally, my beliefs on alcohol is based on a high view of the power of sin and an unwariness of trusting myself in such situations and a high view of representing Christ in a blameless way…nothing more. Can you explain what is, in my view, an inconsistency, where someone who would justify the megachurch movement using the same line of reasoning as you is not okay but when you do in the case of drinking alcohol, it’s okay? If I’m off in my logic or if I misunderstood your post, can you explain why? Respectfully.
Friend,
Thanks for your comment. I think you did misunderstand my post/me/the conference I’m at. Piper, Driscoll, Mahaney and myself all lead within “megachurches.”I don’t know how you got the impression that I, or any of the guys you mentioned, are against megachurches.
I normally delete anonymous comments, so please use your name next time.
Hey Trying …
I understand where you’re coming from and Justin included the summary to a much larger issue which Paul was addressing in that section of Corinthians which is essentially “engaging in morally neutral actions.” Beer, skydiving, and megachurches … they are “nothing” inasmuch as there is no inherent sin in any of these activities though they (like other actions) could open the door to sin (drunkenness and pride) if the person engaging is not tempted by the activity then they are free to engage in them. The stickiness comes in the form of conscience – not offense. I believe that if one is offended by the activity but would not be led into sin (because of an unclean conscience) by your (and their) participation it is still permissible.
So because of Justin’s convictions (which are Biblically based) and the fact that he participated with men who were, presumably, not recovering alcoholics he is ok.
This isn’t the same thing as saying “you don’t know me.” I don’t know many of the “concerns” over the megachurch/emergent expressed by Justin specifically (other than the Rob Bell and Joel Osteen flamefests) but I believe that they are concerns rooted in the authenticity and desire to share the WHOLE gospel – not simply the “saved” part or the “blessing” part (and even then out of context).
Just a thought.
Aah! you are a connaisseur of fine beer. As with the one mentioned above, nothing quite beats the depth, flavour and strength of beers produced in Belgium. The awesome variety of beers produced by that small country is one of the few fond memories I have of my childhood in Belgium. (where my parents were missionaries, did I mention that? What’s more, in those days, they served low-alcohol beer with school meals…)
I recall from a previous post on this blog that Luther too had no problem with fermented brews, in fact, he extolled the positive effect certain German beers had on his bowel movements. (although Belgian ones still win hands down!)
Sure, for some, alcohol abuse is a very serious problem, but we musn’t slip into legalism on this or any other subject. There are warnings in scripture about drunkeness and lack of self control, but no scriptural prohibition about drinking alcohol per se. Rather, as indicated by 1 Cor 10: 31, we are to exercise responsible freedom.
