So I ran across an interesting article Tony Campolo posted today describing a church he recently visited in the UK near London.
Tony describes this church as being pretty large, and, while he never shares an exact number, says there are multiple services each filling the building with people from within walking distance.
When Tony asked the pastor how they accounted for the good attendance, here was the reply:
The pastor explained to me that every other Saturday night they make arrangements to rope off a city block. The police cooperate. They bring in a barrel of beer and a barrel of wine. They add to this a good band. He then went on to say that a hundred of his young people come to this block party and start dancing. It doesn’t take long before people come out of their houses and join them. After a night of dancing and having a good-time party, these young church members say to the people they have been partying with, “How about coming to church with me tomorrow? If you are willing, I will stop by and pick you up.” In reality, it happens and the pastor said, “Every week we pick up about 30 or 40 people who come to our church for the first time. Church growth goes on easily from that point.”
I once attended a conference for ministry leaders in which one keynoter was lauded as “the most evangelistic minister in the United States”.
He organized a worship service on his local college campus and had several hundred students attending each week, many of them non-Christians.
His outreach secret? In addition to having very well-crafted outreach-oriented teaching, “Get a really good band, and serve a few kegs of beer.”
His rationale? “Yeah, some of the kids will get drunk, but they’re going to get drunk anyway. At least they’re getting drunk at a Bible study … right?”
Most church leaders reading this will find that kind of logic idiotic if not down right offensive, but look at what Campolo says:
Some may see this as a dangerous outreach method for a church to utilize. Questions like surrounding the image of the church in the public eye or “Won’t people drink to much and get drunk” are sure to arise. But the beauty of this is that people are being met where they are at and told about the life changing relationship they can have with Jesus Christ. I say Praise God!
Does Tony make a good point, or not? I have my feelings, and would love for you to share yours.
The Overflow 
How can we be separate when we look and sound and act just like the world does (2 Cor. 6:17).
The world is supposed to be SURPRISED we don’t join with them in things such as “drinking parties.” Rather, this seems to be (1 Peter 4:3-4).
Providing alchohol for those who do get drunk not only contribute to their sin but it actually glorifies it.
Show me where Jesus or Peter or Paul threw a keggar and snuck the Gospel in through the back door and I’ll be on board.
The Gospel was good enough then.
Is it not the same Gospel today?
Thanks for the comment, David. I’m assuming you are the same David Creek who married my friend Amanda – is that correct?
One playing the devil’s advocate might mention John 2 where Jesus turned water into wine – how would you respond to that?
Uh, no.
Jesus hung out with sinners, but contrary to many misinterpretation of what happened at the wedding in Cana Jesus would not bring a keg to a frat party.
You could just as well say that we should all become pimps to reach the prostitutes. They’re gonna whore themselves out anyway, we could be good Christian pimps….
The kind of thinking you outlined is bankrupt. Kinda surprised you shared it. Tony Campolo used to be one of my favorite authors. Who switched the price tags? Apparently he has left his first love and is putting the wrong price tag (buying a beer keg) himself on what it cost to be evangelistic. Converting people to a “cushy Christianity” where they can still go out and drink and carouse (just don’t get drunk… how do you navigate that line? how much of a buzz is allowed before you’re drunk?) is not converting them at all, but just putting a Christian label / stamp of approval on their worldly behavior. Jesus said to take up our cross…. Jesus said the way is narrow…. Taking the path of least resistance, presenting a lazy version of Christianity… is such a disservice to them and to ourselves.
Whattup, David?!
G said, “You could just as well say that we should all become pimps to reach the prostitutes. They’re gonna whore themselves out anyway, we could be good Christian pimps….”
I’m sorry but I think your comparing two separate issues and simplistically lumping them together as though there the same thing. Apples and oranges.
No, I’m not. I’m applying the same “they’re gonna do it anyway” logic to a more extreme case to show that it is ludicrous. I was not debating the merits or demerits of alcohol consumption, saying it is better or worse than prostitution; I was just demonstrating the logic, not comparing the issues, nor lumping them together. Please read my statements in context. Fruit is good for you, whether apples or oranges. See: you can lump apples and oranges together! 🙂
I’m not trying to defend or condemn the church Campolo speaks of. As I said elsewhere, I would need to know more before I make too much of a judgment. But, hosting an event in which alcohol is being served is far from being the same thing as “being pimps” or in anyway promoting the business of prostitution.
Hosting a gathering where alcohol is served does not inherently mean the promotion of drunkenness or other irresponsible (and immoral) alcohol related behavior. Promoting prostitution, on the other hand, is to automatically promote something which is illegal in most states, is oppressive to the prostituted, promotes illicit sex, and so forth. So yes, the two issues are different and cannot be dealt with in the same manner.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Again, you keep missing my point, in an effort to just make your own I guess. The point: Using “they’re gonna do it anyway” logic is corrupt thinking. You could use a dozen examples. They’re gonna cheat on their taxes, but if I help them file the illegitimate return maybe I can invite them to church while we pull the paperwork together…. They’re gonna break the speed limit if they were driving, so I’ll go ahead and break it too while I’m driving and they’re riding with me. Maybe I can talk to them about Jesus, although I better hurry, they’ll be in the car less time since I’m driving faster… I just went for the blatant example of pimping and prostitution. Again, and this is the last time I’m gonna break it down for you: I wasn’t equating drinking and whoring; I was just applying the “they’re gonna do it anyway” logic to another vice where people need Jesus.
Oh, just thought of another example: They’re gonna take your words out of context and twist them beyond where they were intended regardless of the pains you take to explain it to them… might as well go ahead and click like by their post… maybe they’ll let me talk to them about Jesus since that will make me appear to be on their side….
I do see the point you’re making but I still think your compressing two entirely different issues into one in order to simplify a moral/ethical question that not as simle as we both wish it would be. Nevertheless, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree at this point.
Grace and Peace,
K. Rex Butts
Rex, please do not tell me what I am doing nor go a step further and attempt to judge my motives and tell me why I’m doing it. If you see the point, then you see the point; just leave it at that and please refrain from the judgmental tone. Agree to disagree? Nah, let’s disagree to agree. How about that?
I never judged your motives nor was I aware that critical thought was judgmental. But, after reading your own critical comments on this thread, it seems sort of funny to be accused of being judgmental by you.
and there you go again….
I’ve just discovered your blog (I just started blogging this week) and saw Tony Campolo in the preview line and had to read it. I’ve always enjoyed hearing Campolo and am looking forward to hearing him later this year at a conference I’m attending.
One of the things I like about Campolo and this post is it provokes thought. I’m not sure I’d make the same decision especially since our work is specifically with men with substance abuse issues (see my blog). But, like Tony, I say ‘praise God’! We Americans, especially ‘Christian’ Americans seem to have become arrogant and self-righteous. Or maybe I’ve just read too much of Rob Bell, Donald Miller and Tony Campolo.
Thanks for posting.
Well, I would want to see in person what the event looks like in person when this church throws their Saturday evening beer gatherings before I judge the morality of the event. I say that because when I lived in the Denver area helping a friend plant house churches, one of the house churches we planted came into existence by accepting the invitation of a young Christian to come to a “wine and cheese” tasting party she was throwing. My friend and I came and without getting drunk, we sampled a few glasses of wine (I’m actually not a big fan of wine) and cheese along with about six other people who were not Christians, who had all sorts of pluralistic views, but who were interested in talking about Jesus. So while we sampled wine and cheese, we had a great conversation about Jesus, life, and discipleship. As a result, a house church was established and non-believers are being reached and taught the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I did what I did in the name of Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit without any questions as to whether what I was doing was moral. If people want to get into a proof-texting contest, I can do that. For every proof-text to say “no”, a counter proof-text can be found to say “yes.” So that is not going to resolve the question. The only way to resolve the question seems to be asking, “are we doing what we are doing in order to please our flesh or is it to engage in the mission of God?” There is not once-for-all blanket answer to that question. The answer to that question is one that only each person can answer for themselves IN EACH new situation.
An individual, or a few individuals, going out into the world is an entirely different matter than a church-sponsored event. (Yeah, we are the church… but you get my point.) I applaud your efforts, but I can’t give a blanket endorsement to this church’s tactics like Campolo did.
This has been an interesting thread. I would like to point out: In an effort to keep kids from harmful and ungodly activities in the summer we sponsor “church camps.” This past weekend I met a girl who lost her virginity at a church camp. Several teens (not everyone who attended) but several teens have still taken drugs into camps, had sex, done inappropriate things, and used the camp as a means to their evil desires. But wait, you might say, “the difference is we did not bring the temptation to the ‘party.'” I would argue that for this girl (and others) the keg was not beer but was “the opposite sex” who was invited to the church camp. It wasn’t a band and party but the opportunity came during recreation time, free time, etc.
So, I guess my question would be “when do we hold people to their behaviors (like sex, getting drunk, etc) rather than hold the minister or church to anothers behavior? I don’t know that we can say 100% that somebody in Cana did not get drunk. If somebody did, can we accuse Jesus of promoting drunkenness or does the accusation remain with the undisciplined behavior of the individual?
All I’m saying is that those who want to get into trouble will find a way to get into trouble. I see this at church lockins and such all the time!
I have enjoyed reading all the comments. I hope this came across as a proposed thought and not a negative, arguing tone. Written is always harder than in person.
That is an excellent point.
Tricking….no
Getting someone drunk and then inviting them to worship….no
Who would be responsible for underage drinking and drunk drivers going home and maybe wrecking and killing somebody…..wrong in all ways!
I was tired and going to bed and decided to check my e-mail….now I’m awake and can’t go to sleep!!!!!
Blame Tony Campolo! 🙂
cosign
Wes,
I get what you’re saying and that it’s facetious (sp?) but I guess I’ve been struggling with the question of “when do we lay blame on individuals doing the sin?” I mean, if I have beer in my fridge, leave the house, and a guest gets drunk while I’m away, was I responsible or my adult friend?
Thanks so much for your blog my friend! It’s always a joy.
Oops. I did want to put in there that obviously if you take a keg to an AA meeting to reach them it may not be such a good idea 🙂 biblically or practically.
This is the kind of thing I cannot resist commenting on.
First, drinking is not wrong. Such a conclusion is just simply not supported by the biblical evidence. I do think drunkenness is wrong. However, I think that Jesus’ miracle in John 2 casts ambiguity on this judgment. He turns water into excellent wine, which is served to a wedding party that is for the most part already drunk. Any interpretation that tries to say this is generally not the case is a tortuous attempt to fit the text to the pre-conceived notion that drinking is wrong.
As for the church Tony Campolo is praising, I am a bit skeptical of their methods. I could definitely see having a drink with someone while ministering to them. However, a dance party with a keg seems rather different. What is to keep this party from becoming like the club scene? I agree with the poster above that said he would have to see the parties for himself before judging. If I walked into one of these parties, would I see behavior similar to what I would find in a club on a Friday night on the outskirts of a college campus? This is what I fear I would find. Ultimately, there is no point bringing someone to faith if that faith does not produce good fruits. That is not true faith.
Then again, to play the devil’s advocate for my own argument, how was the wedding feast in John 2 any different from this block party scenario? It was a large party where large amounts of alcohol were consumed, and when they ran out, Jesus provided more.
Maybe I have only served to problematize the debate. But that’s ok. Either way, I would not be involved in orchestrating or supporting this event. If I was in charge of putting together a similar event, I would enforce a strict 2 or 1 drink minimum policy. Honestly, if there were strict controls on the flow of the alcohol, I would be fine with this. However, this does not seem to be the case with the church we are discussing.
You have made the grave error of inserting modern thinking into an event that happened nearly 2,000 years ago.
First, wine (alcoholic or not) doesn’t get its flavor from the alcohol but from the quality of grape. So this “best should have been served first” idea could readily be understood as comparable to serving Chek cola (or whatever the current off-brand / store-brand is these days) when you had Coca-Cola you could have served. If you esteem your guests you’ll serve the better stuff first, then fall back to Chek cola if you run out. Taste buds are desensitized after you’ve drank (or ate) for a while. e.g., The first bite of ice cream tastes better than the last.
Second, regardless of whether you understand first century practices and how they boiled down grape juice to preserve it then reconstituted it later. (Hence, Jesus asked them to fill the cisterns with water. They didn’t object. This was the typical practice.) Whether you understand that or not, your insertion of modern thinking into this context has Jesus contributing to the sin of drunkenness. Whether you’re a T-totaler or a social drinker or an alcoholic, everyone understands the Bible to teach clearly that drunkenness is a sin. Your modernistic (or maybe it’s post-modernistic) interpretation has Jesus contributing to drunkenness, and that clearly can’t be right.
James 1:13-17
When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers.
So YOU need to go back and reexamine what you’re proposing and not lay the blame at the supposed boogey-man of people who just wanna say all drinking is wrong. You have been deceived, and you are deceiving others. Why people keep jumping on the wedding of Cana and implicating Jesus of making people get drunk / more drunk astounds me. Regardless of what we do or don’t understand, detracting from Jesus and His holy name is horrible.
Let me guess: you probably think the “wine” at the final supper was alcoholic too, right?…
My apologies for getting so worked up, but I get really defensive when people start accusing Jesus of sinful behavior. That is way across the line!
Look, I already said that the Bible speaks against drunkenness, and that the story of the wedding at Cana seems odd. I wasn’t trying to make an argument that drunkenness is ok, I was trying to say that we need to examine how the miracle fits in to the ban on drunkenness.
And are you telling me you think the wine at the last supper is grape juice? That is ridiculous. It was impossible to keep grape juice non-alcoholic in the first century. I don’t know what you think you know about grape juice reconstitution processes in the first century, but it’s a fact that we did not figure out how to make grape juice remain nonalcoholic through a pasteurization process until the 19th century when Thomas Welch did it. The idea that the wine mentioned in the Bible was actually nonalcoholic grape juice also did not arise until the 19th century with the temperance movement. This is the time period when people became convinced that one sip of wine at the Lord’s Supper would cause young boys to spiral into alcoholism and death. They then, with the help of men like Welch, figured out how to replace wine with grape juice and they created historically inaccurate interpretations of the Bible to suit their new moral code.
Yes, drunkenness is patently condemned in the Bible. Alcohol simply is not. Jesus did drink alcohol and he did use it in the last supper.
Actually, let me alter my previous comment slightly. There were ways of preserving unfermented grape juice before Welch, but Welch created the modern abundance and accessibility of unfermented grape juice. However, there is no strong historical evidence that grape juice is meant when the word wine is used in the Old or New Testaments. Of course, we can get into that debate if need be.
Oh heck, I can’t just let my last comment lay there without the explicit evidence, so here goes.
It is very hard to argue that the bible means unfermented grape juice when it says “wine” when we see many mentions in the bible of the intoxicating effects of wine. For example, in Acts 2:13, the disciples are said to be full of new wine when they preach inspired by the Holy Spirit. The cynical bystanders think they are drunk. Hermeneutical cartwheels are required to argue that whenever the NT says a good thing about wine, it is grape juice, but whenever it says a bad thing, it’s about alcoholic wine.
Also, it is hard to ignore the OT evidence praising wine. Psalm 104:14-15 praises God for creating wine which “gladdens the human heart.” Does that gladdening just come from a grape juice sugar high? In Deut 14:26, drinking wine and strong drink are cited as ways of rejoicing before the Lord. There are, of course, many more examples citing wine as a blessing. I have avoided examples in which the word wine is used without other reference to alcoholic beverages or its intoxicating effects, since I know some people make the faulty argument that “wine” means unfermented grape juice in the OT as well. The OT aside, lets not forget that in 1 Tim 5:23 Timothy is advised to take a little wine for his ailments.
Temperance-minded biblical interpreters have gone through extraordinary efforts to dig up mentions of Romans and Greeks preserving grape juice or grapes to indicate that the Israelites, Jesus, or the early church always used non-alcoholic grape juice. Unfortunately, the evidence just isn’t there. Every once in a while, someone squeezed fresh grapes into a cup, but that is likely the only time unfermented juice was used. There is no evidence that this was done frequently, or that it was done by Jesus during the last supper. In order to come to this conclusion, one must begin with 19th century traditions about alcohol and read them back into the text.
Basically, the idea that alcohol is inherently evil and so its positive mentions must be explained away is without a doubt more of a 19th century Protestant viewpoint that a 5th century Israelite one or a 1st century Christian one.
I’m laughing here, so hard. I threw that out as a joke. I had no idea you would take it so seriously and type three long responses. The answer is quite simple.
Grape juice left out does not automatically become wine; it becomes spoiled grape juice! Making wine is a specific process. You choose the yeast, you watch the fermentation process,…
I grew up in rural Alabama. Ever heard of the rural electrification act? People knew how to keep things fresh and unspoiled long before electricity came to the countryside and long before Welch developed whatever mass production process you refer to.
Regarding the final supper, read Exodus 12.
Your citation of Exodus 12 is yet another 19th century argument without a basis in the actual practice of the ancient Israelites or 1st century Jews. Jews did not consider the yeast used to produce wine to be prohibited. They did not make the association between yeast used in bread and yeast used in wine. Jews in the 1st century considered wine kosher for passover, just as they do now.
I really don’t understand why alcohol is such a demon in your eyes. It is really very similar to wealth in the Bible. It is not inherently evil, but put to wicked uses or pursued in excess, it is evil. There are so many more important things to focus on than trying to erase any condoning of alcohol from the Bible. The church has already spent way too much time on petty things like this. People are hungering for the truth, but all many churches do is devote all of their energy to making sure no one has a glass of wine at dinner or making sure that their isn’t too much clapping or too few traditional hymns being sung. The entire purpose of the Restoration movement was to make sure that the church was anchored in the first century and not in modern tradition (especially the tradition of the 19th century when the movement began). This obsession with wine is making the movement a farce. Alcohol is not evil unless it is used in excess, that is a fact based on scripture. Drunkenness is bad, alcohol in moderation is not.
I do not believe Jesus caused people to sin. I believe ones evil desires causes them to sin. I can encourage one to sin but cannot force them to. Just like Satan can entice me but cannot force me to overeat.
One interesting note on wine and non-alcoholic. Oinos is always used as fermented juice. There was a common term, “trux” used for unfermented juice. I’ve always wondered that if the Word is not supposed to be confusing on important issues, and if an exception has been made to use oinos as unfermented, why didn’t the authors just use the common term “trux” which would clearly state it was unfermented?
Just something I’ve always wondered about how people who believe wine was not fermented wade through the two terms and lack of the clarifying term of unfermented.
Josh is exactly right about the word used.
The water Jesus turned to wine was most certainly alcoholic (miraculously aged).
There is a second word that is used as fermented wine in the NT, “gleukos.” I forgot to add this into my previous response. Again, I find it interesting there is never mention of “trux” in the NT.
Oinos does not automatically mean fermented grape juice. It is the grape equivalent of water in usage. If I asked you what’s in the Tennessee River and what’s in the Atlantic ocean, you could correctly reply water although it’s two different types of water — fresh and salt water.
Regarding Exodus 12, no yeast is pretty clear. You can quote all kinds of extra-Biblical sources if you want, but I’ll stick with the direct instruction of Scripture. If you go to a Passover seder, you’ll find a boiled egg in the observance although it is nowhere in the Biblical instruction. (My guess would be it was introduced during Babylonian captivity, where Ishtar the goddess of fertility was worshiped.) Y’all go ahead and debate “Beer Church” all y’all want and continue of accusing me of saying things I did not say and holding positions I do not hold, but I’m out after this. There’s much more important things to spend my time on. All I’ve done here is insist on Biblical thinking, not the faulty logic of “they’re gonna do it anyway” and not inserting 2011 thinking into texts written centuries and millenia before. Thanks for provoking some discussion, Wes. Sorry it degenerated so quickly.
G – I was not aware you’d studied Greek. Oinos most certainly does automatically mean fermented grape juice.
Here’s a definition from BDAG – the standard Greek lexicon used by scholars world wide:
Here’s another from The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament – what my professor at Fuller (who is Greek, btw) assures me is the best word study dictionary one can buy:
These are authoritative resources – others (for instance, something you find on the internet written by a teetotaler with an agenda :)), not so much.
Yes, Wes, I have studied Greek. There are reliable “authoritative” sources that spell it out just as I said. I’m not going to get into pissing contest as to who can cite the best. The English word wine encompasses non-fermented juice(s). So does the Greek oinos. The bulk of Christendom thinks Jesus died on a Friday afternoon too. Just because “everyone” believes something doesn’t make it true. Just because “authoritative” sources say so, don’t make it so. Who gave them “authority.” The overwhelming majority of people claiming to follow Christ did not follow his instruction on baptism. I said I wasn’t going to post any more, but out of respect for you I thought I would answer you. Yes, I have studied Greek.
I’d like to look at them. Can you tell me the names?
G,
The authority of these sources comes from the serious and careful scholarship involved in compiling them. To produce most Greek lexicons, several very experienced scholars comb through Greek texts and to find all the ways a given word is used in Greek literature. They then define the Greek word based on how it is used in the texts. They often cite various examples of any given word’s usage in the definition itself so that anyone can go and look at the examples for themselves. These sources have authority because they employ solid linguistic and historical scholarship and they have been used and tested by other Greek scholars. It seems unreasonable to imply that these sources are authoritative because someone randomly assigned them authority. Scholars with a wide variety of ideological commitments have found these lexicons to be useful and accurate, thus imparting them with authority.
And we can’t leave out the Liddell-Scott-Jones, which tells us that “oinos” can even be used to refer to fermented juice from sources other than the grape. Thus, one might say that the word is more associated with fermented substances than with any specific fruit, such as the grape.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=oi%29%3Dnos&la=greek#lexicon
There are many people who do different things to reach out into the community of those who do not know the lost. I have no problem in going to where they are to share the love of God with them but I draw the line in providing them with the opportunity to fall. The Bible speaks of drunkenness being a sin. If I provided beer and wine to them I cannot prevent them from drinking too much and thus sinning.
Coming from an family with an alcoholic parent, I have seen the devastation that alcohol does. Surely, there are many other ways of getting people to worship.
This was an interesting post, Wes….
I don’t know if I would throw a kegger and invite people to church afterwards, but I remember really discussing Christianity with my friend Emily at a bar. We were not wasted, but we were both at very low points and knew that the drinking wasn’t helping much and that led us to start talking about Jesus and unconditional love….looking to something greater than drugs and alcohol :)Maybe there is no need to throw a kegger, just hit the bars and look for people who are down to talk about Jesus…? Hope all is good with you and the fam.
-Jodie
Hope all is well with you too, Jodie – would still love to grab coffee sometime and catch up 🙂
[…] interesting and lively discussion titled “Beer Church.” I want to encourage you to CLICK HERE and join in! It is something that gets you thinking. Don’t react immediately, think […]
I’ll leave all the discussion about what Greek word was used and whether it was “Wine” or “wine” to all you greek “Scholars”…LOL
I for one will not be the judge of the methods used to save a lost soul. I believe our God works in ways we do not understand and I praise Him for every sinner turned to Him!
Agreed, so the question becomes, “Are people really being led to Jesus?”
Unfortunately, I am not sure we have enough evidence to determine whether these people are really being led to Jesus, though it is the key question. We are to judge a person’s faith by his or her fruits. Therefore, we would have to see what sort of fruits the people in this church produce. For example, after becoming Christians, do they become shamefully drunk at these evangelistic block parties? Campolo doesn’t tell us. Though I do wonder how these drinking evangelists could manage to bring themselves and others to church the next morning if they actually were getting completely wasted.
Agreed and I agree with Wes on the question of “Are people really being led to Jesus?”
I don’t know enough about them to know if they are being led to Jesus or not but IF they are then I praise God for the increase.
“What you win them with is what you win them to.”
I’ve always liked this quote and I think it is applicable here.
Good point – thanks for the comment 🙂
[…] being said, here is a bit of food for thought regarding Campolo’s “Beer Church” […]