- rel·e·vance \ˈre-lÉ™-vÉ™n(t)s\
1 a: relation to the matter at hand b: practical and especially social applicability
2: the ability (as of an information retrieval system) to retrieve material that satisfies the needs of the user
I was thinking about the word "relevant" today and how its become one of those phrases that Christians say without thinking, kind of like "born again", or "saved". Unfortunately, we don’t think much about what it means to be relevant, instead we either embrace it or denounce it reflexively, which is a shame because there’s at least two different concepts that are meant when this word is word.
The first meaning is used by detractors to the concept of relevance. It means basically to pretend to like or be whatever is popular at the time. Way back in the second incarnation of Slice of Laodicea Ingrid used to comment that it must be exhausting for pastors to keep up with movies, TV, etc to stay relevant. This is a perfect example of this first meaning of relevance which essentially tries to use market studies to create relationships. It is also the meaning of relevance that is always referenced by people who who criticize relevance, and is never the meaning referenced by those who don’t.
The second meaning of relevance is the one used by those who don’t think its an FCC banned word. It simply means letting your talents, interests, skills, abilities and passions breathe outside of the church. Essentially it is a fulfillment of the command to be salt and light in places that are dark and bland. It means using Christian as a noun instead of an adjective. Instead of putting on a Christian battle of the bands, you are a Christian at a battle of the bands. To illustrate, let me quote from Penelope Trunk, one of my favorite secular bloggers:
If you are lost, and lonely, and wondering how you’ll ever find your way in this world. Take a job. Any job. Because structure, and regular contact with regular people, and a method of contributing to a larger group are all things that help us recalibrate ourselves. [emphasis mine]
In other words, relevance is about regular contact with regular people, contributing to their lives in order to be calibrated to them. Ever wonder how Christians get to the point where they speak a different language than their non-Christian neighbors? How it seems there’s no common experiences to build on between a church and the community that church exists from?
The lack of relevance doesn’t come from failing to put in effort at whatever is popular, it comes from failing to be in regular contact with regular people.
73 Comments(+Add)
A couple good points in the article… But first and foremost, the gospel of Jesus Christ is as relevant as you can get: all are sinners and are need of a Savior.
Sure, there are those who are stodgy and don’t reflect the fruit of the Spirit, but there are those who go over the top to “sell” the gospel by using themes, contests, gimmicks and whatever else attracts people (remember the “Red Hot Sex!” interview on CNN last month – ridiculous).
Much more compromising is occuring in an effort to reach the “unchurched” (notice it’s not the lost or unsaved – we’re more politically correct). When we start polling the ungodly to find out why they don’t go to church and then create a church around those wants and desires we start off on a bad foundation.
Another thought… I wonder why Jesus said, “The world has hated me. Therefore, don’t marvel that it will also hate you too.”
The Bible is full of references warning us not to become worldly to win the world. Again, you can take the approach of “heading to the hills” which isn’t correct either.
BTW, what’s wrong with the comment Ingrid made?
Thank you for this. I often wonder if Christians even know the definitions of the terms they use.
I’m glad to hear that I don’t necessarily need to go to a church that plays loud rock music to be “relevant”.
Penelope Trunk is one of your favorite bloggers? Really? You’re kidding, right? Everytime I read her, I get the same reaction to get to “Calvin was just a product of his time.” ICK. Seriously, how can we be friends?
Because its indicative of misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting what is being communicated.
When you start with that its pretty clear you’re using the first meaning.
The Bible is timeless, therefore the word relevant as it applies to the Scriptures is…uh…irrelevant.
Joe,
I can understand not particularly liking here, but I don’t see much in the way of feeling icky towards her. She’s pretty non-controversial, non-provocative.
Then why is it translated?
To communicate to the time bound race.
Her financial advise sucks. It’s awful. She wrote an article once that I honestly thought she should she have gone to jail for. Of course I was using a little hyperbole. Go read a book, will ya!
Ah that explains it. I mostly pay attention to her communication advice, and analysis of different generations’ tendencies.
Obviously the term “relevant” is going to be interpreted subjectively… The point is that many rely too much on gimmicks, fads, shows, themes and so forth. How can this be undeniable?
Tim said (regarding Ingrid’s comment): “Because its indicative of misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting what is being communicated.”
How is this the case? There are hundreds of examples (worldly concerts, circuses, MoviePastor, NakedPastor – the list is truly endless) of crass attempts to pander to a worldly mentality (perhaps with good intention). How can this be denied?
BTW, you didn’t answer the question regarding Christ’s comments above.
Paul,
Why do you assume that these are being done as a demographic study kind of way? Rather than as a natural outworking of their personalities (which, especially in the case of nakedpastor I think is the second meaning of relevant). All of this requires a reading of the heart, something Ingrid, you and I are largely, not in a position to do.
Because our differences stem from different theologies regarding “world”. You view the world in terms of style and activities, while I view the world more in terms of how authority is used, and how relationships are used/abused. Here’s our podcast on this topic.
Tim, I see the term “world” meaning “age” as in the current age we’re living in.
Do you deny that there are 100s of examples of people attempting to be relevant that have missed the mark?
Paul was relevant and yet he told the church at Corinth that when he was there he did not rely on excellency of speech (in todays terms that might equate with a cool band, lights and smoke machines, or breaking the sermon ice with a few jokes to warm the audience) but preferred to rely on God to do the work.
James, Peter and John all warned about worldliness. But today we call it relevance.
It is right and correct to attempt to communicate the truths of Scripture by understandable conduits. The danger comes when the people understand those truths tainted and changed by the sheer power of the relevant methods that overwhelm the truth and render it distilled and powerless.
We see this today as many profess Christ with little or no outward manifestation of that change. There should come with regeneration a discernable thirst for the things of God on some level. Sometimes this relativism brings God comfortably into the sinner’s world and not lifting the sinner into God’s world.
No we don’t. Instead we call it things like “office of the ministry”, and “tradition”. And really anything that puts love in second place, and labels servanthood as the “social gospel”, and to put an even finer point on it, any methodology that demands our rights over anyone else. Any of the watchdoggies’ articles on things like pulpits, pews, hymns or the respect that preachers used to have should do it.
Paul,
In scripture, the word used for “world†is κοσμου – kosmos, which comes from the word komizo – which implies the orderly arrangement of things – not the “age” or “era” – each of those has a separate Greek term.
In the Greek, the implications of κοσμου are more than physical location, but rather imply the order of things in existence. John, in particular, uses this word in two different ways – one to describe the systems of the world (as in Jesus’ words to Pilate – “of this world†– implies to be created from the systems of this earth (which are derived from human power – political, financial, physical)); and the other to define its entirety (such as in John 3:16), from which a subset (people) are singled out for discussion.
So, taken in context, “the world” speaks to the systems that run the world, not the culture of the world…
Tim, I agree that we can be completely irrelevant (pews, etc) and miss the mark and major on the minors – just as we can be so eager to be relevant that we also miss the mark (as evidenced in countless examples).
Chris L, I don’see how your definition contradicts what I’m saying. I think we definitely have a problem if we can’t define worldliness and all that comes with it.
I also would not necessarily separate the culture from the systems that run the world. Interestingly, how many times did the world culture even come up in the NT (or OT for that matter)?
Yet today, that’s all we seem to hear about from people thinking they’ve finally cracked the code!
Many times, if not all times, the culture reflects the controlling systems. Sometimes the cultural observances are benign, but sometimes they are anti-christ.
Long hair on Women – benign cultural
Free sex – anti-christ
Paul,
My last post had very little to do with relevance, and everything in defining worldliness.
I see far more worldliness in creating an office of ministry that demands respect and lords authority over others (which I’ve seen lamenting from watchdoggies, mostly Ingrid, over the loss of this) than I do in most secular activities.
“So, taken in context, “the world†speaks to the systems that run the world, not the culture of the world… ”
Which “world” are we talking about? There are at least two “worlds” existing together on one planet earth. The natural world and the spiritual world.
Through faith we understand that the “worlds” (plural) were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of the things which do appear (Hewbres 11:3 KJV).
The word “worlds” in this verse does not translate into “planets” in the Greek. Is the “truth” everyone seems to be seeking in the natural world or the spiritual world or in a mixture of both?
F Whittenburg
Tim, your concept of worldliness is very one sided if that’s what it refers to (lordship and authority) while ignoring the just-as-damaging impact of basically getting into bed with the world in the hopes that it will marry you – basically, shacking up. Sometimes the church seems to take this mentality: “Maybe he’ll give me the ring one day.”
The culture, as Rick says, often goes directly against the grain of Christian principles (as opposed to Christian tradition). Our society is rife with this today.
Interesting application… I didn’t realize that cool bands and reliance on God’s Word to work were mutually exclusive.
Paul C,
Congratulation. Two strawmen, in one very short paragraph.
Neil – don’t miss the point in trying to preserve your position here.
All I’m saying is that Paul understood it is not man’s wisdom or marketing as much as reliance on God. I believe the simple, straightforward presentation of the gospel in the right spirit and with the right motives is what’s important here. Sometimes that gets drowned out or barely addressed in our efforts “to win friends and influence people.”
I am baffled that at least this much cannot be admitted. I simply don’t believe that we’ve suddenly stumbled upon a “secret sauce” in presenting the gospel with this concept of relevance (often a cloak to simply become more worldly just like the people cling to the prosperity gospel as a cloak for greed).
“relevance” – on one hand it could be the Lord of the universe incarnating himself into said world… on the other hand it could be the denial of miracles to make the Bible palatable.
Â
I think this was admitted in the op.
The word “worldly” is confusing. We all use wordly methods (computers, cars, etc.) but what is implied in the accepted and colloquial sense of the word is living and particpating in that which the evil systems have constructed. Some of these are obvious and some are clandestine.
So the Christian executive who doesn’t drink, smoke, or curse but lust inwardly is “worldy”. On the outside his witness seems clean but it isn’t.
The Christian man who smokes, drinks, and curses and makes no attempt to appear differently than his unsaved neighbors is also “worldly”. On the outside his witness is compromised.
We have tended to concentrate much more on the outside than the inside for sure, but they are related.
The question is, “Does “relevance” today really accomplish what Paul said should be the reaction of the unbeliever because of the ministry that they experience?”
But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth (1 Corinthians 14:24,25 KJV).
I have just read about these new types of “relevance” ministry on SoL website. Has anyone that has been to these services seen any of the reactions Paul is describing (i.e. the secrets of his heart made manifest) as a result of the entertainment ministries?
Hey dude, that is the best tasting beer I have had in awhile, I can tell God is in you of a truth. Hey dude, I can’t believe you made that jump with that motocross bike, I can tell God is in you of a truth. Man, I haven’t ever seen any funnier clowns, I can tell God is in you of a truth.
Is the entertainment (motorcross, clowns, beer, etc.) considered the ministry to cause the “worship” in the “relevant churches”, or the preaching and teaching?
If anyone wants to experince that old style “reverant” worship, is the Catholic Church going to become the only venue? I read where the Catholic Church was moving back to much more traditional music complete with Gregorian chants. I have a question, “Why is the Catholic Church rejecting “relevant worship”? How come the clowns are working for the Protastants and not for the Catholics. Can’t they see the results of “motorcross worship”, and “rap / break dancing worship”? Are they blind?
Has anyone tried this for church growth or is it really just outdated?
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me (John 12:32 KJV).
F Whittenburg
F Whittenburg,
Posts like the last one would be a lot more effective if you gave specific examples of ministries you consider worthy of a generic label.
As far as the description from 1 Cor.- I’ve heard such stories from emerging churches.
Neil
Those who have a disdain for “relevance” are often those who identify the Christian witness with awkward dress and blanket condemnations of drinking/dancing/smoking/music/movies.
I always wonder though why we rely upon such distinctives. Something is wrong with our rubric if it means condemning C.S. LEWis as a worldly mess.
In the end, do we cling to the easy stuff because the loving is so hard?. With all due respect to Ken and Ingrid’s ministries, the one word I would not use to describe their ministries is “hard.”
“‘And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself’” (John 12:32 – NAS) – ‘course how he is lifted up is not prescribed.
Neil
I have never been to those services but only read about them on SoL website, thank for the input, Neil and M.G. I wasn’t sure from the articles if these churches were doing this to attract people and then minister the word to them latter or if this was considered the “ministry”? I look forward to some more input. Good or bad.
F Whittenburg
C. S. Lewis was an intellect, but he was far from Spiritual.
F Whittenburg,
I think you will find the good and the bad, as it were, among those trying to be relevant. We’ve even had disagreements among ourselves on this site on that very continuum.
The main problem with ODM’s like SoL is their lack of discernment – ironically.
The reason I ask these questions, is I am actually curious about the logic people use to come to their conslusions about doctrine. How did they come to the conclusion that “relevence” is the correct way for church growth? Why is Willowcreek claiming now it may not be working so good. This stuff is interesting to me. Jesus said that in the “last days” that he will give some wisdom and knowledge that no one will be able to gainsay or resist.
For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay or resist (Luke 21:15 KJV).
I have not found the person yet with that wisdom. I posted last year on SoL before it went down and I did not find that person with the undisputable wisdom the Bible speaks of, but there was some good responses. I have not found undisputable wisdom on this site either, but I did read some good responses also. The positive side to this is maybe someone else reading these exchanges may have learned some things also. So that is why I ask questions. I am looking for responses, good or bad, that are undesputable. Thanks for allowing me to post comments.
F Whittenburg
Paul (and to some extent, Rick),
Actually, it conflicts completely.
The concept of ‘kosmos’ – of the world – is a statement of socio-political order – not culture (which was as diverse on a city-by-city basis in Jesus’ day as we are country-by-country today). ‘kosmos’ is a statement of how things are ordered, in which power comes through strength, wealth, intrigue and exploitation. ‘kosmos’ is cross-cultural and timeless – in this regard we are little different than the Roman Imperial system.
Jesus’ way is the opposite of this kosmos – the first are last and the last are first.
When you try to make kosmos all about the culture, then it becomes subjective to whatever the reader desires. It becomes “I don’t X, because X is worldly”, where X= drinking, smoking, chewing gum, wearing buttons, going to movies, attending the theater, playing music with electric guitars (or any guitars), etc. , etc.
kosmos is about power structure not cultural tradition.
Does anyone actually read anymore? Willowcreek’s study was pretty specific as to what it was and was not, and most of the commentary I read on blogs referencing it (like yours, Whit – but I’m not singling you out completely here) seem to have no understanding of its results.
So much of this discussion misses the point of the OP:
“Willowcreek’s study was pretty specific as to what it was and was not, and most of the commentary I read on blogs referencing it (like yours, Whit – but I’m not singling you out completely here) seem to have no understanding of its results.”
I don’t have a blog site. My website doesn’t have any commentary on Willowcreek. My book When Faith Came doesn’t address Willowcreek or the Emerging Church either. I just saw the story on SoL and assumed that this site was designed to answer those accusations from SoL. So that is why I asked the question on this site. To get the opinion from the other side and perspective. Did I misunderstand the purpose of this site?
F Whittenburg
http://www.christiannewbirth.com
Chris L,
I think you are exactly right and you confirm my point.
How difficult is it, and how much wisdom does it require, to fight against an ordered social-political system that is more invidious and anti-God than you could possibly imagine?
Compare that to individuals who think they have some amazing witness because they refuse to grab a pint after work with friends.
People who define a witness by cultural and subjective preferences are completely missing the point. But they do get to delude themselves into believing they have everything figured out.
Whit -
Ah – I thought you were trying to represent the WC study, not ask questions about it.
We’ve discussed it some in the past, here, here and here.
I’m tied up for much of the day, but perhaps one of the other guys can pick up on this in my absence…
MG – excellent points!
Hello Chris,
“Ah – I thought you were trying to represent the WC study, not ask questions about it.
We’ve discussed it some in the past, here, here and here.”
Thanks for the info, that is the information I was looking for.
F Whittenburg
In partial response to Chris L, I think that when the bible refers to the world (1 John 2:15-17 as an example or James 4:4) refers to the sinful elements that pervade society.
To draw an anaology, in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah Lot would be considered “relevant” – Abraham would not.
Having served as a missionary in Africa for some time, I think I have a sense of what relevance is. The presentation of the gospel should meet people where they are and relate to their daily life (obviously I’m not talking about the evils of pornography on the Internet when most people have never seen a computer:)) Relevance is just that.
Once we start doing all the other gimmicks or taking polls to see what people think we miss the mark completely.
Every one of the apostles, Stephen and anyone else you can name in Hebrews 11 was relevant. Was it accepted? Of course not. “These all died in faith…”
Sheesh go to bed an hour and a half early and the smoke clears.
Nevermind.
In support of Chris L’s theology of the world (and one I wholeheartedly support) we have Jesus defining the world:
Also pretty much anytime Jesus says something like “you have heard it said.. but I say…” for example:
Honestly if I thought the paradigm Jesus came to shatter was people who smoke, drink, and cuss I’d probably not be a Christian, because that’s a savior too small to save anyone, much less me.
“Honestly if I thought the paradigm Jesus came to shatter was people who smoke, drink, and cuss I’d probably not be a Christian, because that’s a savior too small to save anyone, much less me. ”
A misrepresentation of another position in order to solidify your own. I do not remember anyone espousing that view, however, some view of loving the world include outward manifestations as does the New Testament. The Scriptures even go so far as to suggest that avoiding some things enhances our witness in the eyes of the lost. We should walk circumspect in the midst of this lost world.
Rick,
While it was an exageration, its at least in the right neighborhood. Just look at Steve Camp’s article on relevance where he’s all concerned about rap.
Tim – I did not make the camp connection, I was representing my own. The hypocrisy of Camp’s blog has been well documented by my former comment. If we read preachers from other eras we must conclude we all have contextualized the gospel to some extent.
I recoil at those who are so sure about everything and yet joyfully participate in the hedonistic lifestyles that Whitefield, Edwards, and most of their favorites would roundly reject. It is a theological smorgasborg, take what you like and leave the rest. I would assume that Whitefiel and Wesley would disapprove of wealth gained from Christian music as well.
Ah I see. We’re coming at this from slightly different perspectives.
I wonder why they called Jesus a glutton and wine bibber?
We shouldn’t be defining certain actions as “worldly” before we define them as ’sinful’ first. I think that’s a misaplication of the word “worldly”.
I think Jesus and His apostles who followed him around did many things that many of us today would consider ‘worldly’ and therefore by association with that word ’sinful’ too.
I think Christians over the past 2000 years have set up a ‘name’ and standard for themselves that now the world around us holds us to, as well as our own people hold us to by virtue of tradition. But these standards are not necessarily Biblical absolutes, and unfortunatelty now we’re forced to ‘play along’ with them because these ‘ideas’ about what a Christian should be, in relation to the CULTURE around us, has become so ingrained in the minds of the church and the world around us, that we cannot escape it.
But if I have to play along sometimes in order to witness to another person, then so be it.
Many Christians I come across would be apalled if I told them a Christian could drink. Many of the (unsaved) military guys I work with think that if I even say “suck” that I’m not acting as a Christian should. This is the impression we’ve made of ourselves. This is our bed, and now we have to sleep in it. We’re restricted by our own tradition, how terrible.
It’s hard to RELATE to anyone in this world now as a Christian because of the preconceived notions we bring along with our Title. It’s hard to be RELEVANT because as soon as I try to do this, I’m instantly thought of as ‘not being Christian’ and therefore not credible by their standard, which they’ve gotten from OUR traditions and ideas of what Christians should and shouldn’t be. Not according to the Word of God.
I can’t relate to them because they think there is this huge spacial gap between me and them. I’m speaking Chinese and they English, but if I try to speak English to them, they think I’m not fitting with their bias of what a Christian “should be like”.
I’m not talking about sinning to fit in with the world, I’m talking about being Jesus to these people, but they can’t handle it because of the bias we, The Church, have given to them about ourselves.
How unfortunate.
Joe
Joe C,
That was a home run right there. The religious leaders cry was that Jesus was a friend of sinners.
Tim – neither am I making the Camp connection. I also agree that what Jesus came to do was to save us from more than “drinking, smoking and cussing” – though these would be taken care of in the regenerated heart of a believer.
The bottom line is that worldliness and sin is largely linked throughout scripture. This should not be difficult to understand (as John 2:15-17 and James 4:4 highlights).
Also, another scriptural point to consider is 1 Peter 4:
“… the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry. With respect to this they are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you..”
Is this so hard to grasp?
Hey – here’s some real relavancy for you:
http://www.alittleleaven.com/2007/12/bible-study-at.html
Do you see what I mean? Examples like this are legion.
Yeah…that’s a little over the top.
Relevancy has it’s Scriptural limits.
I think the buck stops at “lust and adultery”.
Joe
Paul said:
Paul, are you saying that drinking is a sin? Or smoking? Or even (opens can of worms) “cussing”?
Would they really be taken care of? Are they sins?
Paul,
Well, I think those types of things are really beyond stupid. They, to me, would be totally irrelevant. Most non-Christians would look at them and laugh. I’ve always thought that 90% or more of the items in a typical Christian bookstore could be lost in a fire, and the world we be better of for it. The worst is the extremely “customized” Bibles. It’s like “The unwed, teenage mother Study Bible” or “God’s word for the double amputee”.
I’ve found that when people have to make an effort to be relevant in that type of way, they are automatically irrelevant. It’s kind of like the 45-year guy that hangs out in a college bar. No matter how hard he tries, he can’t be cool.
Some of the most relevant people I’ve met are in many ways very “un-hip”, but everyone just wants to be around them.
Joe C – I would not consider drinking alcohol to be a sin, as long as moderation is maintained (as opposed to drunkenness). So modesty, moderation and temperance is really the key. In terms of smoking, I do know a few people who have literally been delivered from this instantaneously. It is indeed a habit a Christian should not be enslaved to. Likewise, cussing is not reflective of Christ and the bible clearly states we are to guard our lips and not cuss.
Phil – Amen all round there (got a good chuckle out of the customized Bibles) – I have no problem with the entire Christian bookstore going up in smoke.
The reason Jesus was called a winebibber and a glutton is because he was a friend to those who were, not because he was. We should be a friend to sinners without being a partaker of their evil deeds. In 32+ years of being a Christian I have had many unsaved people express respect for my lifestyle which was an open door.
I think that fellowshiping with unsaved people is not compromising, doing what they do is.
Rick,
Jesus hung out with people who were drinking and probably were drunk. He was there. We have no record of him saying anything to them about it. That is different from many churches today. Let’s be honest, if Jesus came today and not 2,000 years ago many churches would have treated him exactly like the religious leaders of that day.
That is also my point. We as the church have not only separated ourselves from sin, we have separated ourselves from sinners. I am guilty.
Rick,
If your not careful, you’re gonna have to go back to the hospital. We’ve agree way too much in the last two days.
I know, the walls (ODM) have ears. BTW – I am feeling so much better and my blood is bacteria free. I am now taking one pill a day which is much different than self administering
I-V three times a day and feeling weak and nasty.
Thanks for your prayers and concern.
I have to disagree with you a bit Rick.
I think yes, perhaps Him being with drunkards had something to do with it, but I can almost guarentee you that Jesus drank wine and ate food with sinners (He did with His apostles, afterall), not just sat with them while they did it. And when the religious leaders saw Him drinking wine, they just did the normal ODM thing and blew it up out of proportion and called him a drunkard.
With that said, I rarely if ever drink. And only wine. That isn’t to say drinking is wrong. Or beer is evil. Or whatever.
Paul, I don’t think the Bible speaks about english swear words as what is sinful. But cursing and slandering others with your speach, and THAT is what unclean language is. Per Ephesians 4 and James.
If I called you a “jerk” and meant it, It would be much, much worse than if I screamed the S word because I got scared by something. One is a sin, one isn’t.
The Bible defines ’swearing’ as cursing someone, slandering someone, basically as attacking someone with our words with intent to tear down and not edify. We shouldn’t try to smush Scripture in to our 21st century American cultural bias.
That isn’t to say we shouldn’t ‘gaurd our tongue’, you don’t know who’s listening, after all.
And if you don’t think cussing is reflective of Christ, then I think we need to go back and re-read the Gospels and the language Jesus used to address the bad religious leaders.
I think the entire confusion is on what your standard of ‘cussing’ is. I used to feel exactly the same way as you seem to do now Paul.
If you feel convicted about it, then run with it. Anything that doesn’t come from faith is sin.
Joe
Joe – I did not say Jesus never drank wine, He did. Of course He ate also. But he was never drunk or a glutton, that was my point. He fellowshiped with sinners without sinning.
Rick – sorry to hear about your physical troubles.
Joe – when Jesus makes the reference to being a winebibber it was simply what people were saying, not necessarily true. Look at the time Jesus asked his disciples who people say he is. Answers came back as Elijah, Jeremiah, etc… Were they correct then? Of course not. It was just people’s opinions – nothing more.
Did Jesus drink wine? Yes. But if you simply look at the teachings of His disciples (especially Paul and Peter) then you begin to get a better understanding. Let’s not look to justify things just because we want to do them.
We are to be a friend of sinners, but no a partaker. This is where many are falling down. We all sin, but wilfully sinning and engaging in things that are not right is effectively like the reference Peter made: a dog returning to its vomit (that is, if we ever vomitted in the first place).
I do agree that if Jesus came back today he would upset the apple cart – but I think this would happen on both sides.
And I said….
Don’t assume I’m trying to justify something I “want” to do. I don’t justify anything, I only say drinking is not a sin, and the Bible and the teachings of His disciples won’t say it’s a sin either. Jesus drank, in moderation, it was normal then, and it’s normal now, and it’s not forbidden. Drunkeness is, but I wasn’t talking about that, nor did I say Jesus got drunk.
I agree, friend of sinners, but we are not to sin as they are sinning.
I didn’t say it was true. I said they called Him that because they saw him drinking with ’sinners’ and blew it out of proportion, which is EXACTLY my point of what Christians do with these “sins” like “drinking” and “american swearing”.
I hope this clears things up.
Love, Joe
PS I don’t like swearing either, but I’m over it. If I drop an S bomb because I freaked out and got scared, I’m over it. I don’t feel I sinned. If you think I’m deceived and marching down a wrong path over that, then please pray for me, I appreciate it.
Joe
Joe C – my comments were based on Joe Martino’s comments above… not yours.
As you will see in my comments I also outlined that drinking alcohol is not a sin – see my 11:03am comment.
I’ve never heard the term “american swearing” – sounds original.
Paul C,
I find your comments to be very full of assumptions. I wasn’t justifying anything. Go back and look at what I said. It had nothing to do with justifying anything. My point was that Jesus was with people who were drunk and we have no record of what he said. If that happened today, many churches would be lined up to see Him put in the chair.
Argh stupid names being the same and all…
I don’t know if “American swearing” is original, but it is a good description of what we think are ‘no-no’ words. As defined by the culture around us. The F word is meaningless to an Arabic speaking person.
It’s certainly not Japanese swearing. LOL.
Joe
Whatever. That’s the kind of crap that makes me want to convert to Orthodox.
What specifically Tim?
If you read my other comments you’d see that I acknowledge there is no sin in drinking wine in moderation (as opposed to drunkenness). What’s wrong with a statement like that?
I have heard preachers go so far out on this topic that they claim that the wine Jesus created was unfermentted grape juice. When Jesus turned water into “wine”, the Greek word for wine in that verse was “oinos”.
The verse Ephesians 5:18 uses the exact same Greek word for wine and associates it with getting drunk. How can you get drunk on unfermentted grape juice?
And be not drunk with wine, wherein excess; but be filled with the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18 KJV).
F Whittenburg
Jesus drank red cool-aid.
If you don’t believe me, you’re going to hell.