Thankfully, the resurgence of microbrewing in the United States is helping to overcome the great loss and to resurrect the art of brewing. I personally long for the return to the glory days of Christian pubs where God’s men gather to drink beer and talk theology.
- Mark Driscoll, The Radical Reformission

Now, many Protestant Christian churches in America have been near-continually lying to their congregations for almost a century about what the Bible says on wine and alcohol. They deny that Christ both made and drank wine with his apostles despite overwhelming scriptural evidence. Not until fairly recently in US history has the newer church generation been mature and powerful enough to start casting out the feminism-driven romance with prohibitionism (alcohol is sin) and abstentionism (it’s not a sin but Christians should abstain) that has been perpetuated by “nearly-false” prophets. To be fair, not EVERYONE preaching such blasphemy does so from a Satanic heart… some are merely ignorant or mentally blocked by their legalistic upbringing… but never-the-less it is a sin to declare a sin something that is not.

Diligently do everything I command you, the way I command you: don’t add to it; don’t subtract from it.
- Deuteronomy 12:32 (The Message Bible)

It never ceases to amaze me how anyone (even people trying to pass off as Christ-followers) will re-write and re-interpret history and scripture to suit their own purposes. I’ve expanded on such in my previous post Chardonnay and Lean Pockets. Here’s a link regarding what the Bible says about alcohol [LINK] and a link that even specifically addresses Jesus drinking beer [LINK]. And yet another link on the history of beer in the Christian-influenced world [LINK].

If self-righteousness were an art form, many Protestants’ work would be in the Guggenheim!
- Brad Stine

Here is a little history refresher (taken from The Radical Reformission by Mark Driscoll) that I like to bring up every now and then:

• Saint Gall was a missionary to the Celts and a renowned brewer
• After Charlemagne’s reign, the church became Europe’s exclusive brewer
• When a young woman was preparing for marriage, her church brewed a special bridal ale, from which we derive the word bridal
• Pastor John Calvin’s annual salary included upwards of 250 gallons of wine to be enjoyed by him and his guests
• Martin Luther once wrote of the Reformation, “While I sat still and drank beer with Philip and Amsdorf, God dealt the papacy a mighty blow.”
• Luther’s wife Catherine was a skilled brewer, and his love letters to her when they were apart lamented his inability to drink her beer
• When the Puritans landed at Plymouth Rock, the first permanent structure they erected was a brewery

It is a striking truth how scarce the above facts are within Protestant sermons in the US. And as if our myopic faith had no limit to its hypocrisy… our “teachers” often neglect the fellow brothers and sisters in Christ across the ocean who live in cultures not plagued by relics of abstentionism and having no temptation to re-write the Bible. They regularly drink beer and wine with such Christ-given freedom that American visitors from legalistic backgrounds often express great shock and discomfort, a testament to the false doctrine they were force fed from birth.

Some Methodist minister by the name of Welch invents grape juice in 1869 to replace communion wine and we’ve been suckling it ever since.
- Steve Mooradian

I’m no liberal Christian… I’m a politically conservative, theologically fundamental Christ-follower who happens to drink beer and worship in blue jeans playing electric guitar. And now I will brew… but with so many choices of fine ales and lagers I am left to ask myself… what would Jesus brew?

I know I haven’t posted much lately, but rest assured it’s not because my mental well is dry. Much to the contrary I have more material I need to blog on than I can even remember at any one time. Life has been busy and my more productive pursuits have gotten higher priorities… as well as the usual Autumn necessities like closing the pool. Now, my greatest fear is that perhaps my sparse posting could be construed for a waning desire to express myself in the face of all that is insane and illogical. Again, rest assured, I fear nobody… least of all the perpetual parade of clowns.

I do get troubled, though. I’m troubled by people all around me. I’m troubled that certain groups trumpet “free speech” and “tolerance” like it’s a religion… yet those exact same screwballs actively try to silence the speech of others they disagree with. You’d think this was a sick joke, but it’s no joke. I never thought to turn Negative99 into a political blog, but it may only be a matter of time. My good conscience cannot sit idly by while truth is trampled in favor of “correctness”. We’ll see.

Anyways… one particular irritant that has reared its ugly melon lately is that of “being offended”. Much like some use the race card, just about anyone has the ability to try and play the “offended” card. If they don’t like something, they simply say that they are “offended”… as if offendedness-prevention is something that should be everyone’s highest priority. As if being offended trumps candor, truth, accountability, and openness.

Having a blog means I speak… and as I’ve said before nowadays you can’t say anything of ANY substance without offending someone. Some have the guts to express it openly in the blog comments for the scrutiny of others… but not all. But not just bloggers… schools are open to parents being offended by an Easter Egg sticker on their kids’ papers… or a Halloween party. How many times has society changed what it calls minorities in an effort to continually avoid offending them??? I could count probably seven different ways to say Hispanic before even getting to the epithets. Does that even make sense? I could go on for hours listing some popular forms of “offense”.

And I only mention “being offended” with speech and blogging because they are connected. People all around us… whether in school, church, work, on the radio, in the newspaper… are playing the “offended” card. I recently read a whole chapter in Brad Stine‘s latest book about the tyranny of the offended (my phrase, not his). It’s really just a form of control. It’s a way to stifle candor, truth, accountability, and openness.

Now, that’s not to say that nothing is offensive… what I’m saying is that what fools today are trying to pass as offensive really is not. For example, an Easter Egg is not offensive… until someone shoves it up your butt. Clear? So the next time someone dubiously plays the “offended” card… offer to give it back to them Easter Egg style.

Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don’t matter, and those who matter don’t mind.
- Dr. Seuss

I am an outgoing person. I’m very extroverted… in fact my Myers-Briggs rating is sometimes a straight ESTJ, meaning I’m a war general. As such I have always spoken, whether it was time to speak or not. You will hear it said that it’s much better to be quiet than to speak. You will hear people say “I’ve often regretted my speech, but never my silence.” You will hear sermons preached on the third chapter of James about taming our tongues and the massive damage our words can inflict on others.

This is all fine, but it is perilously lopsided to the point of being deceptive and dangerous. If you want to bring the Bible into it there are more of examples of Christ tongue-lashing than tongue-holding. The Book of Proverbs lauds speaking the right words at the right time. History is replete with examples of evils that were allowed to occur because of the silence of millions of people.

A word aptly spoken is like apples of gold in settings of silver.
- Proverbs 25:11

Don’t let anyone tell you that going through life having never offended anyone was the holy way to live. There exist many with wacky beliefs and ideas… and if none of them are offended by you this is to your discredit. They say that defeat is just part of the road to winning… and the the only true losers are the ones who never try. I think the same is true to some extent with the expression of our ideas and principles… and that the only true losers are the ones who think that by staying quiet they’ve performed the more honorable and tolerant action.

Absolute tolerance is impossible for anyone, unless, of course, you believe in nothing.
- Brad Stine

So my blog is just an extension of how I do life. I decided a while ago that if I’m gonna’ go down I’m going down swinging. If I’m going to err it will be by actively doing the wrong thing rather than by a lack of doing anything. Now, does this mean say whatever whenever to whoever and be damned if you don’t like it? No, of course not. Common sense is still a cornerstone of higher-order humans. The proverb above specifically exhorts the use of “aptly spoken” words. The key is this… don’t let fear of not speaking perfectly aptly 100% of the time keep you silent.

You’ve got to dance like nobody’s watching, sing like nobody’s listening, and blog like nobody’s reading.

The following message from Pastor Stan Key was printed on the front of the Worship Guide on January 15th, 2006, for Loudonville Community Church (LCC):

When I was growing up, churches seemed to compete with one another in an effort to be “holier than thou.” But the game has now changed. It seems the competition among churches today is centered on the effort to be “trendier than thou.”

Our praise band is better than yours… Our jumbotron screens are bigger… Our services are more seeker-friendly… Our pastor is cooler… Our ministry is edgier… Our cappuccino lattés between services are frothier…

The temptation to be relevant is great. But it is a temptation. In a desire to reach the unreached, the seduction is strong to think that newer is truer, later is greater, and bigger is better. We begin to actually believe that we must marry the spirit of the age in order to have an impact. Dean Inge captured the false allure of such thinking in his celebrated line, “He who marries the spirit of the age soon becomes a widower.”

Jesus saw through such seduction. The devil tempted him to turn stones to bread. “Give people what they want,” he seemed to hiss. But Jesus did not take the bait. Thank God! Man does not live by bread alone. He looked beyond our wants and saw our need.

The race to be trendier-than-thou is self-defeating. Not only does the church who falls into this seduction become guilty of what C. S. Lewis calls “chronological snobbery,” but this is the surest path a church can take to cultural irrelevance! The passion to be up-to-date is the surest recipe for becoming out-of-date. A church whose main purpose is to be “cutting-edge” will soon become either inconsequential or a place where a “different gospel” is preached. Years ago, Simone Weil said it well: “To be always relevant, you have to say things which are eternal.” I am slowly learning that the best way to be “cutting edge” is to be “retro.” Preach the Word. Study the Bible. Love your neighbor. Confess your sins. Do this, and many will wonder what you are up to! It is the things that make us different from the world that makes the Gospel attractive.

As your pastor, I want you to know that I am deeply committed to being counter-cultural. When people accuse me of being oldfashioned and out-of-step with contemporary trends, I say, “Thank you for the complement.” The only way I know to be truly “cutting-edge” is to preach the full Gospel of Jesus Christ! Let’s recommit ourselves to being in the world…but not of it!

Pastor Stan

A little background… our local newspaper, the Albany Times Union, had just coincidentally (or not so) featured a BIG front page spread on two other churches in the area, Northway Fellowship and Grace Fellowship. The article, titled Reconciling Religion and Relevance, praised these two “modern” churches for shedding many tired traditions of men and embracing cultural relevance. These two churches also happen to have thriving praise and worship ministries. The article boiled down to this… the Gospel message delivered in a relevant vehicle and mixed with a solid worship ministry was a recipe for church growth and cultural outreach.

On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock.
- Thomas Jefferson

I don’t believe it was a mere coincidence that Pastor Stan’s message, suggesting relevance is a temptation, appeared just after the article Reconciling Religion and Relevance was published. Indeed, his message seems to be a counter-point to this article. But unlike the churches in the article, LCC is not currently marked by sharp growth, nor a thriving worship ministry, so it’s hard not to think Grace and Northway aren’t being specifically targeted since they match the description Pastor Stan gives so well… they have better worship teams, edgier ministries, seeker-friendlier services, and at least one, in fact, serves cappuccino lattés between services (and they’re as tasty as they are frothy).

Nobody can deny that sacrificing sound Biblical doctrine in order to achieve some kind of über-current, super-relevant, contemporary church is definitely wrong. What I will deny is that a church has to sacrifice scriptural truth to be culturally relevant. It doesn’t. They aren’t even related. Some churches are both relevant and scriptural… some are just one of those… and some are neither.

In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, diversity; in all things, charity.
- Augustine

I don’t think anybody would argue against the case for a church being scriptural, but what about being relevant? Is relevance a temptation? Let me ask you this… how can you reach people if you aren’t relevant? We are all in this culture, like it or not. We’re all part of our society, be it as it may. We can lock ourselves in our steepled buildings and thank the Lord that we’re not like other people… or we can be Christ-like and start affecting people where they are. After preaching in the synagogues Jesus would go preach in the streets… and then go into the houses of the “un-churched” and eat and drink wine with them.

There may be some in today’s church who will read Pastor Stan’s message and take it to an extreme… they may take it as a green light for us to choose our favorite moment in time (usually the 1950’s or the 18th century) and lock ourselves, our praise, our message, our language, and our minds in that time period. Indeed, if you look around at today’s churches this is the norm. Talk about “chronological snobbery”! Somehow I don’t think being caught in a time-warp is going to draw non-time-travelers to the cross. How would it? We’re not going to reach people if we refuse to use the communication vehicles of their culture. I remember stories of early missionaries to some of the most remote mountain villages in the Eastern hemisphere… where Western pipe organs would be hauled at great expense to the newly established churches so that they could worship the “right way” with the “right songs”. People to this day still swear that the King James Bible (written in a language no longer spoken) is the only so-called God-breathed English Bible translation. Can you imagine?

If self-righteousness were an art form, many Protestants’ work would be in the Guggenheim!
- Brad Stine, Being a Christian Without Being an Idiot

NEWS FLASH: Right now… it’s now. It used to be then, but we passed then. We’re at now, now. As Christians, living now, we’re called to be relevant. We are here to affect our communities, and we can’t do that if we aren’t using the styles and communication vehicles of the culture. But why wouldn’t we do that in the first place? What so possesses a Christian to discard their own present-day styles? These are our styles, too! Yet, there still exist in today’s churches (in surprising numbers) “chronological snobs” who insist that sacred hymns put to centuries old tunes (tunes which have passed out of musical relevance) are the epitomy of true Biblical praise and worship… while those same hymn lyrics put to modern, relevant musical arrangements are discounted as attempts at being trendier-than-thou. Some even claim that the new arrangements are sinful, and even pornographic?!

I’m worried that some “chronoligical snobs” might read Pastor Stan’s message and see it as Biblical justification for their snobbery. Indeed, it’s hard not to read it any other way… and I was fairly concerned with the fact that he didn’t have anything good to say about relevance. A Wesleyan I work with thought it sounded like a classic bait-and-switch… using the fear of compromising sound doctrine to justify cultural reclusion. Unfortunately, that interpretation is pretty much how it reads.

relevant – adjective :: applicable, pertinent, material, significant, directly related and connected to the subject, object or issue

antonyms :: irrelevant, extraneous, immaterial, inapplicable, inconsequential, insignificant, unimportant, meaningless, pointless, senseless, useless, inappropriate, inapt, unsuitable

Sources :: Answers.com and Wiktionary

We need to preach the Word, study the Bible, and love our neighbors, and we need to do these in a deliberate, relevant, culturally effectual way… else we’ve done them in vain. Pastor Stan is right to implore us to let nothing compromise scripture and the Gospel message, but I am saddened to see relevance (in style and trend) being seemingly confused with the compromise of sound Biblical doctrine. I know that both can be embraced… and I know this because it was Christ’s example.

Good links: Relevant Magazine :: Acts 29 Network
Great read: Radical Reformission

To the Editor,

I must take exception to the December 19th piece by Kate Gurnett on the so-called Christmas Controversy, which I found to be slanted and deceptive. In lieu of the exhaustive exposition required to address all of the piece’s faulty assertions I’ll try to keep this down to a low, pithy roar.

Having some (just a little) knowledge of the events surrounding the controversy over singing Christmas Carols in Colonie Center Mall, I found myself reading Ms. Gurnett’s piece with some dismay. It was probably less suited for its front page splash than it was suited for the editorial page, the more appropriate haven for opinion and general subjectivity. While reading the piece I found it describing the leadership of Loudonville Community Church as bullying, stubborn, overbearing men trying to push around a poor, helpless female mall official. Ms. Gurnett eloquently painted the mall official as a brave heroine standing strong in the face of heckling church-goers incited by their un-budging leadership who would seek to extend their evil grip onto the entire universe. I almost shed a tear at the end when our heroine deftly tamed the beastly pastors into acquiescing to her firm, yet fair conditions of Yuletide performance.

Now, Ms. Gurnett and I both know she didn’t use any of those specific words above. We also both know that smart journalists inject their opinion (under the guise of reporting) using concealed morsels of charged language in order to connote their actual message. The church leadership’s actions were described with verbs like “refused” and “claimed”, connoting stubbornness and contentiousness. It was said Pastor Stan Key sent a “missive”, connoting intentional indignation. It was also very bluntly implied that the entire church was completely mistaken in its concern over the allowance to sing Christmas Carols… perhaps even deliberately misled on that perception. And Ms. Gurnett very cleverly paralleled the church members’ honest concerns about Christmas with the efforts of a nationally known and controversial religious figure, perhaps intending to impugn their motives or validity.

Let me clear up something. Telling a church choir that they can sing traditional Christmas Carols but they can’t sing anything with overt religious content is a bit like telling an embedded journalist in Iraq that they can report on the war but they can’t mention anything about the fighting or the effect the conflict is having on anybody over there. While we’re at it let’s recite the Gettysburg Address under the paltry restriction of not quoting anything Abraham Lincoln ever said. And I always wanted to see the Grand Canyon with the mild stipulation that I wouldn’t be allowed to look at any rock formations or the sky.

I’d be more inclined to believe that, after several sincere phone calls from legitimately concerned citizens who patronize Colonie Center Mall, the aforementioned official (who I honestly believe, in all fairness, was caught in a personalized situation she didn’t invite onto herself) decided to embrace a broad, new interpretation of “overt religious content” that included such covert lyrical verse as: “Joy to the world, the Lord is come! Let Earth receive her King”, “Come to Bethlehem and see Him whose birth the angels sing. Come, adore on bended knee, Christ, the Lord, the new-born King”, “Veiled in flesh the Godhead see. Hail the incarnate Deity, pleased as man with man to dwell, Jesus, our Emmanuel”. Perhaps “Gloria in excelsis Deo” could be considered as “not overt”, but that’s Latin for ya’.

If we want to talk about this so-called Christmas Controversy, let’s talk about it. Let’s talk about “overt religious content”. Is there anything wrong with it? I hear a lot of frightful pleas against exclusive endorsements of organized religion. I hear a lot of “Happy Holidays”, which seems the de facto standard of socially correct and inclusive greetings. Can we really say “Happy Holidays”, though? What about groups that prefer not to celebrate holidays, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses? Isn’t “Happy Holidays” offensive and non-inclusive towards them? And doesn’t “Happy New Year” offend people who don’t believe in time?

The comedian Brad Stine asks which part of Christmas is so offensive anyway? Is it the “Peace on Earth” or the “Goodwill towards Men” rhetoric? And what reasonable soul standing on US soil would see a holiday greeting that applies to the peaceful celebration of 80% of the country’s population and want to have it silenced? What perceived “tyranny of the majority” does “Merry Christmas” hold? How many does it take to be offended or uncomfortable with something before it must be expunged to preserve some imaginary national harmony? Must every aspect of every facet of American life fit the unanimous whim of the country’s entire citizenship? Since when are the whims of US citizens in complete agreement? By the very act of doing you are in real danger of offending someone. Even doing nothing is still doing something, and will probably offend even more people than before. That’s life, which is one of our inalienable rights. Freedom from being offended is not one of those rights.

And when it’s all said and done, I hold nothing against Ms. Gurnett or the so-called Christmas Controversy, because in the end there’s a bigger meaning to it all. So let’s not forget the reason that the brave and speech-challenged little trooper from the famed and treasured secular holiday classic wanted his front incisors. It was to wish you Merry Christmas.

Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.

Well, today in church another blend of reasoning overtook me. The thoughts of Chardonnay and fat collided again in my mind… let me explain. (To my non-Christian readers this may be a bit foreign but you should read on.) There was chatter in my church regarding the drinking of alcohol by Christians and insinuations that temperance is holiness (a notion that a rational Christ-follower would easily dispel since Jesus himself drank alcohol… and, in fact, Jesus was readily accused of being a drunk by the 1st century version of some people in my church). Anyways, there was, in this chatter, the obligatory Bible references used to ask if drinking wine was beneficial and honoring and glorifying to God… of course the questions were asked in such a way that it’d be uncomfortable, even arrogant, for most people to definitively answer yes to any of those questions for anything except maybe for prayer and fasting. (A more honest and practical approach would be to ask if it dishonors God) I mean, really, could you really say that it glorifies God to eat dessert… dessert which is loaded with saturated fats and sugar… useless calories that do not benefit our “temple”… usually eaten for the vulgar epicurean delight of its devourer? (sounds sinful to me… get the fires goin’!) I say that obesity, the abuse of food, has far greater in-roads in the church-goers I know than alcoholism, the abuse of alcohol. However, abstinence of dessert sounds pretty ridiculous (especially to obese church-goers)… and it just doesn’t have the same resonance with the ole-timers as temperance-talk. Needless to say, the leanings of the chatter were as evident as the slant a peace-protester-turned-journalist would put on an “objective” news story from Iraq… the facts stated were correct, but the way they were delivered and the parts that were left off bias the story and reveal the chatterers agenda. (To be fair… I don’t believe the agenda today was intended to deceive anyone.)

So be certain that, on their own, I don’t think it is any more wrong to eat dessert than to drink alcohol. Be certain that there are those who think alcohol is wrong (for everyone) and who would sway you to come to their conclusions with them. A great comedian, Conservative and Christ-follower, Brad Stine, wrote a book touching on this very topic and this very comparison between alcohol and dessert. The book is called Being a Christian Without Being an Idiot, and while the literary editing is a bit rough, the content is funny, smart and extremely relevant. If you are one of my fellow Christ-followers (and hopefully better at it than I) this book is a must read… at the very least to be aware of some prevalent idiocy pitfalls. And while you’re at it it wouldn’t hurt to watch any of Brad’s multiple comedy DVDs. He’s also been a featured speaker the last 3 years at Promise Keepers and I suspect he’ll be there again this year.