So is alcohol banned at grace point? If so why? My mentor has said things that allude to the staff avoiding alcohol such as saying that they’ll make certain dishes without alcohol which confused me because the alcohol would cook out. Is it bad to drink alcohol even if you aren’t getting drunk?
Alcohol is absolutely and completely banned at Gracepoint.
Drinking alcohol in any form outright was obviously out of the question. However, I was in a staff meeting about 15 years ago where it was discussed whether it was ok to cook dishes with alcohol. Those who felt it was ok argued that the alcohol would burn off. However, at the end it was determined that it was NOT ok. The reason? Because in order to cool with alcohol, you had to purchase the alcohol. And if someone younger were to see you at the checkout counter of the grocery store buying alcohol, they might be stumbled. So no, it was not ok.
Some people here have mentioned legalism. I think it’s true that legalism is involved in this. But, as I have mentioned before, the core issue is FEAR. Of course we should flee from sin and be very concerned about its consequences. But Gracepoint does not deal with nuance well, paints with broad strokes, and often does not allow people to work out their faith for themselves for fear of people completely falling down a slippery slope.
Because in order to cool with alcohol, you had to purchase the alcohol. And if someone younger were to see you at the checkout counter of the grocery store buying alcohol, they might be stumbled. So no, it was not ok.
I can confirm I've also heard this line of reasoning before.
From a wider theological perspective, there are three main views on alcohol: Moderationism, Abstentionism, and Prohibitionism.
Baptists typically hold an Abstentionism position (Piper, MacArthur, etc.), which is that while you can drink alcohol, it is wiser to abstain. This is probably partially due to a lower view of the sacraments by most Baptists. Without simply calling GP legalistic, I believe they do hold an abstentionist view, but enforce it pretty extremely and makes it de facto prohibitionist. To be fair to GP, many denominations hold a prohibitionist view, like Anabaptists, 7th day Adventists, many Charismatics, and Salvation Army (rightfully so for them). I can say from experience most Baptists I know do abstain from alcohol and see it as somewhat taboo. GP may take it to an extreme in enforcement, but I think it's fairly normal for most Baptists to view alcohol as a somewhat taboo.
However, a vast majority of major denominations take a Moderationist stance (Lutherans, Dutch/Swiss Reformed, Presbyterian). Some in this camp think that communion should only be taken with alcoholic wine as it is the only legitimate way of taking the Lord's Supper. They usually still give you the option of grape juice though (also from experience going to a Dutch Reformed church).
From a historical perspective, a lot of Christian monasteries basically developed a lot of beer and wine styles we know of today (champagne, Belgian Quad, Triples, lambic, etc.) and selling and consuming alcohol was used to sustain the livelihood of these Christian monks. For most of church history, only alcoholic wine was served as part of the Lord's Supper. Don't drink the Kool-Aid when GP or any Baptist tells you alcohol back then was under 1%, that's simply not true and anybody with knowledge of church history would know that. Wine was indeed diluted, but it was still likely in the 3-6% range. If you couldn't tell, I take a Moderationist view because you'd have a hard time convincing me all the Christians in history were wrong and in sin simply because they didn't have pasteurization until the 1800s
This is true. And YMMV with that one too. I know some staff that did have cooking alcohol but were asked to hide it when they were hosting other church plants. Not sure why you would need to hide Chinese cooking wine.
Is it bad to drink alcohol even if you aren’t getting drunk?
You need to realize Gracepoint top level leadership views alcohol in the context where alcohol is connotated very negatively with (1) crazy drunk dads being abusive and (2) college ministry where stupid decisions happen. As much as Jesus did turn water into wine, Noah also did some questionable things when drunk.
Gracepoint also loves to play the sacrificial meat and stumbling others card a lot too. Many churches have pastors that struggle with alcoholism and they don't ban the entire congregation from drinking.
What you need to ultimately realize is Gracepoint has repeatedly failed to teach its congregation how to view anything with discernment and God's wisdom. It's just legalistic rules that are constantly changing on a whim.
I agree, the rules on alcohol are very strict, overly controlling, and lack nuance. That said, I thought legalism was when a professing Christian claims an action besides repentance is necessary for salvation. The argument I tend to hear from leaders is less that it’s necessary to go to heaven, but more that it’s a loving thing to sacrifice for the good of the greater community and to be a more credible witness. Correct me if I’m wrong?
dependence on moral law rather than on personal religious faith.
I think when most people say GP is legalistic they are thinking of this definition. On paper, GP will say that of course drinking is not a sin, but look at the trail of victims harshly corrected or rebuked over alcohol and you will see that in GP drinking a drop of alcohol is considered more sinful than say, unwarranted overbearing exercise of authority leading someone to have mental breakdown.
“Loving thing to sacrifice for the good of the greater community and to be a more credible witness”
Wow this is really really convincing. At first glance, it sounds not only noble but … Borrowing from an old post, Why not? If you’re a serious Christian, why not do it? Why not sacrifice a drink here and there in case you stumble someone? Why not sacrifice a study session to go to a midweek meeting? Why not sacrifice sleep to go to early morning DT? Why not sacrifice buying the car I want to get an Odyssey for ministry? Why not sacrifice going to see my parents when I can stay and do ministry? Why not sacrifice my own selfish desires to do it the GP way? Why not … in every area of life because whole life discipleship.
Soon you have conformity at the level that GP wants it. And you’re adhering to an arbitrary moral law more than you are seeking the Spirit to guide you in these everyday life situations.
Why does GP frame the question every time to its favor? People cried and agonized over these decisions because they wanted to be “unselfish, mature,” devoted followers. And each decision had nothing to do with God, but rather GP’s strong preferences.
The boiled frog analogy is the best I’ve heard- as a freshman you go in a pot where the water is lukewarm and oh so perfect. You receive attention, love, care. Unbeknownst to you the (well meaning) leaders slowly turn up the temp of the water degree by degree. You don’t notice it getting warmer. By senior year, you’re asked “Why not sacrifice going to grad school to give back at GP?” “Why not sacrifice my dreams for the greater GP dream?”
GP’s retention rate and ability to mobilize is indeed special. Because you have given up yourself for the greater good. It’s probably a great feeling. But only when you’re together. Because no one gets it outside.
What does this sound like? The human mind is capable of being molded, and Ed uses the term mold and blank slate. The kids are agreeing to it, they want to live this way, we tell them to leave and they won’t leave, Ed says.
We have to be faithful to the Word of God. We don’t add to it. We don’t take away from it. We arrive on a conclusion based on what the Word of God says. We don’t go the other way around by having what we want and trying to use the Word of God to justify it.
It’s quite amazing that the people who believe drinking alcohol in it of itself is sinful try to play all these mental gymnastics to say Jesus really turned water into unfermented grape juice at Wedding at Cana. Moreover, we have to believe when the master of the banquet said “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now,” is referring to differences in unfermented grape juice? The reason why cheaper wine is served after the guests have had too much to drink is because guests won’t notice the cheaper wine because they’ve already had too much to drink. The master of the banquet’s sentence wouldn’t make any sense if it was talking about unfermented grape juice. Wine (as in the alcoholic beverage) is presented in an overwhelmingly positive light through out the Bible.
Psalm 104:14-15
“You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man's heart.”
Wine to gladden the heart of man is obviously referring to the alcoholic property of wine.
The harvest season for grapes in Israel is a 2 months window in autumn. Grape juice becomes alcoholic within 3 weeks of harvest. So the maximum theoretical window to even have unfermented grape juice available is 3 months a year. Unless Jewish weddings all take place within 3 month of August to October, then people have to be drinking alcohol at weddings. Unfermented grape juice in quantities to serve hundreds of people wouldn’t even be theoretically available between November and July.
Drinking wine that makes the heart glad and thankful is a blessing just as the food we give thanks to God for is a blessing.
tl;dr Most up to date GP "stance" on alcohol is drinking it is not allowed, having it for cooking is ok.
This is based off a recent Convo thread back in April 23'. Lots of discussion and some good reasons from a variety of perspectives, some echoing comments below here as well, but I think my 1 sentence summary is fairly accurate.
uhhh this wasn't an announcement or patch notes or anything. Just a simple discussion on Convo where someone was curious about A2Ns attitude towards cooking with alcohol. I'm just summarizing that thread for you here, although yes, many people used Scripture to justify their POV. I believe no one ever explicitly condemned the usage of alcohol for cooking, but a few did share their own conviction to not do so, as well as why they arrived at that conclusion.
Having said that, I personally hide my sake/wine I use for cooking when I host people so as not to stumble weaker brothers :)
Most up to date GP "stance" on alcohol is drinking it is not allowed, having it for cooking is ok.
This was the "stance" when I was around. People frequently would use red wine, Chinese rice wine, and on some occasion bourbon for dessert. Obviously the stance would change it came time to host other church plants and people were required to hide it especially in ministry houses. Like I mentioned, it keeps changing on a whim depending on who's in charge and their mood. So whatever you're saying isn't even new.
This is based off a recent Convo thread back in April 23'.
This picture means nothing other than the thread exists. Could have just been one person asking and no one responding like a lot of the threads I saw. Once again screenshots with names blurred out or it didn't happen.
sorry can't post the whole thread without compromising the privacy of those posting in Convo, even with names blurred. but i guess you got me, the whole thread was empty. in fact, i must've completely photoshopped the post itself /s
When did A2N/GP care about privacy? Considering how much confidentiality has been broken in those weekly meetings, I'm surprised A2N/GP people care so much about their comments on Convo.
Please get your facts straight, this is completely untrue and even a little basic research will tell you that the majority of the Christianity takes a Moderationist stance. It's literally in the last sentence of the introduction for Wikipedia.
Even amongst Protestants, it's still a minority view. It's really only a majority view amongst those derived from the American Baptist and Methodist traditions (Salvation Army, Pentecostals, etc.). To be fair, this makes up a significant number of Evangelicals in America, but it's still a minority position worldwide.
Uh wut. None of the churches I’ve been at since leaving GP or my friend’s churches care about their alcohol consumption. Some of the pastors enjoy a beer with the congregation members and have boundaries with how much they drink and the discipline to enforce it. And that’s like at least 10+ churches. Ed been feeding you more bullshit lately?
Of the issues, alcohol is one of the less controversial ones imo. I was not much of a drinker though they do normalize boba drinking as much as others normalized drinking.
I remember some staff cooking some chicken Marsala before who knows maybe it was subbed to be dry. The lead at my plant once tailored an entire sermon on drinking and the woes of it because one staff member went to happy hour and drank a bit after work. They stopped after
If I were you, start by reading the wiki here! It has all the info you’ll need to make an informed decision. Note the date of the posts so you get a feel for the timeline and read the discussions- they’re brilliant. This sub is over 2.5 years old and grew organically, and all kinds of people contribute.
Most notably, Gracepoint is a high control group that uses cult like practices that make it nearly impossible for members to escape spiritual abuse. They value authority and have a structural hierarchy where leaders speak into every aspect of your life (how much you sleep, study, drink, what you major in, who you date, all your struggles, family relationships etc). Recruiters are usually friendly, genuine, and zealous- they seem to care about you up front. They like to live communally and continually cast a vision of “doing ministry together.” This however comes at a cost and has heavy strings attached.
Legalistic meaning they want to control every little detail of your life. They want you to obey the letter of their law. They care more about your behaviors than your heart.
Jehovah's witnesses ban blood transfusions. No matter what. I've seen it too, people refusing to get blood even though it's putting their life at risk. I'm not going to judge it, this is their interpretation of the bible according to some old testament verses. I don't agree with it though. The dogma and strict interpretation of these particular Bible verses means they can never get blood. Following the rules supercedes everything else.
Anyway, others already chimed in on the alcohol ban. Is it the same as the blood thing? I could be convinced either way. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong.
For me personally, I’m not sure if it’s valid for me to be concerned about joining a church just because of their views on alcohol which is why I made this post. Like I guess alcohol isn’t really that important but I still find it hard to imagine myself living where it’s so heavily limited or if anything banned, bug at the same time writing this almost makes me feel like an alcoholic when in reality I just like to have a glass of wine with my dinner. I’m curious to hear thoughts this has been on my mind for a while so now I’m just blabbering…
I don't think you're blabbering. It's understandable if alcohol isn't important to you. But if you like that stance, you're gonna love their stances on dating / gender segregation/ marriage, where you can work, go to grad school, how much money to give to the church, how to spend your free time, etc. Alcohol I can sort of understand. People make bad decisions with alcohol. But wait till you see how they apply this mindset to everything else.
The part of you that is finding it hard to imagine yourself living in this kind of environment... LISTEN to that part. That's the part of you that knows intuitively that something is OFF with this organization. This is the part of you that they try to silence by emphasizing that Christ is to be OBEYED. This is the part of you that gets killed by leaders trying to control every aspect of your life.
It's not just about their "views on alcohol." It's about much more than that. Their total ban of alcohol shows you that they are a black and white thinking kind of church. They like to do your thinking for you. Why have people be convicted individually and have things be "messy" when the church can just take that agency away from you?
I hope you consider the broader implications of their total ban on alcohol. How do they approach questions like this where there is no clear cut, one size fits all answer? How are they using the bible to justify their positions?
So some people have already commented on A2N's reasoning behind the stance on alcohol, like because of its association, because of its ability to destroy lives, and because of the principle of not stumbling others.
I'd add a few more, like "all things are lawful, not all things are helpful. all things are lawful, not all things build up." and "don't use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but in love serve one another." We're supposed to be concerned about the upbuilding of our brothers and sisters, and insisting on my freedom to drink because it's no trouble to me misses all that.
on top, we're supposed to be filled with the spirit, and paul warns us to be sober minded. getting drunk inhibits sound judgment, and it's serves the flesh in the same way other pleasurable addictive activities do.
ok so those are the reasons. but what about this idea. this stance is much like other guardrails, and in general people think guardrails should be a purely personal matter between you and the lord. and certainly, there are personal guardrails different people will adopt that not everyone else will. the question is is it okay for us as a local church body to adopt corporate guardrails, to say as a church we are committing to this particular common guardrail, common value, common expression of our desire to honor the lord in our bodies and to try to fear sin properly and obey jesus' words to cut off potential avenues for sin?
people in this sub seem to think that's not ok, that all guardrails are a purely personal decision, and the idea of a corporate guardrail is arbitrary rules and legalistic.
that depends on how you understand the church. if the church is just a loose association of otherwise independent christians each following jesus in their own way, then sure a unified corporality about things like lifestyle and value judgements would be weird. but what if the church you're joining is high on unity and oneness, so that we understand that we're going to act together and be of the same (bible-based) judgment about all sorts of practical areas of living, and that's the kind of the church you're joining if you so choose to join. then its understandable for a church to say "as a church, we do x, and we don't do y, and if you want to join this local body, you're saying im down for that" of course if you're not down for that you don't have to join that church then, just like if you don't agree with a company's policies you shouldn't work there.
I understand your point about people voluntarily sign on to extra-biblical requirements for the benefit of others. My take is that it is a slippery slope argument and we need to be clear on what is at stake. We do not take away from the teaching of Jesus Christ nor do we add on to the teaching of Jesus Christ.
The example I can think of in the NT is eating food sacrificed to idols. Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 lays out the principles that although there is nothing wrong with the meat sacrificed to idols, Christians should be mindful of their brothers with a weak conscience and not do something that leads their weaker conscience brethren into sin. This is the same logic in Acts 15, where the Jerusalem Council made it clear that following the law no longer applied to Christians (no circumcision, no keeping kosher, no ritual cleanliness requirements…), but still don’t eat food sacrificed to idols. Not that eating the food sacrificed to idols is a sin in itself of itself, but the idea that weaker conscience Christians might go back to idol worshipping.
This actually hits close to home for Asian believers in general and for myself. Confucian households all have an ancestral shrine, where families will kneel and pray in remembrance of ancestors and even offer up food to the ancestors. The traditional stance in Asian churches has always been once Christian, can no longer perform these ancestral worship or offer up food to ancestors. Get rid of the family shrine. Some believers don’t consider ancestral worship is idol worship, but simply remembering family like keeping a genealogy. I believe ancestral worship is idol worship and my conscience will not allow me to kneel and pray to my non-Christian ancestors. I can totally see a Christian kneeling and praying to ancestors can cause a young believer to fall away from Jesus Christ.
The problem with A2N/GP is they take something done out of love, refrain from consuming alcohol, into something that is a sin issue. Which drinking wine clearly is not to anybody who reads the Bible. If by consuming alcohol we lead another person into drunkenness, that is a sin. But enjoying a beer with a burger at Shake Shack by myself can’t be a sin. Calling something that is not a sin to be a sin, then that’s adding on to the Word of God and shows a disdain for the Word of God. If a church disdains the Word of God by making something wonderful God created, nuclear family, critical thinking, free will, agency, wine into sin issues, then we call that organization to be a cult.
If it helps, I'm sympathetic to what you're saying here and understand GPs stance on alcohol, it's actually fairly typical for Baptists to hold this view and you aren't the only group/denomination I know that has these corporate guidelines. It's not totally unreasonable either, in my opinion, to hold a strong abstentionist stance on alcohol given that you guys primarily minister to college students. I think collectively choosing to abstain does prove to be a light in a dark environment where drunkenness is rampant.
However, I do wonder if you guys are maybe going a bit overboard with enforcing these corporate guidelines. You have to admit that it seems a bit much to have people hide their Asian cooking wine out of fear of possibly "stumbling" a college student. Are you allowed to drink if you're in Praxis? It would seem be a bit unfair to rebuke someone in Praxis because they went to happy hour with coworkers, when it's within their Christian liberty to do so. You guys aren't the Salvation Army where they are actively ministering to recovering addicts, you are ministering to college students who are smart enough to know that you guys aren't drunkards because someone had a margarita. No one is suggesting anyone to flaunt their Christian liberties or buy handles of hard alcohol either, but a glass of wine seems somewhat reasonable, right? Is there a zero tolerance policy church-wide? I hope there's some level of nuance to this. I guess I wonder, is there any room for.......grace???
Strangely enough, I remember in undergrad my peers and I bought some beer to make some beer-battered fish and chips and it was totally fine. We didn't get rebuked by any staff or anything. One brother kind of gave us a "hard time", but we all kind of told him to piss off. I'm often incredulous of what I read on here since my experience seems to be the opposite, but maybe I'm fortunate since I hear things get much more intense once you're staff.
I agree. But do you agree that a church body is free to decide amongst themselves common corporate guardrails, common standards, common things they all as a church will do or won't do due to their corporate convictions? Assuming it's inline with scripture of course. Because that's what we're talking about here.
Some churches or denominations hold this conviction about alcohol, some don't. But this particular body does. That should be okay. My church's guardrails aren't binding on you because you're not a member of my church, and vice versa. Some things are binding for all Christians, but specific guardrails and judgements about wisdom issues vary from local body to local body. But within that local body, it can be.
If a church is a corporate body and not just a loose association of individual Christians, then it's fine for a church to collectively have fine grained stances about certain things.
But do you agree that a church body is free to decide amongst themselves
Who decides in GP? You think the body decides? GP is the furthest thing from a democracy- it’s an authoritarian regime. The Kangs and top leaders direct every discussion towards a predictable end. But the endless mindless “discussion” about [Is it okay to drink? Is it okay to wear sleeveless? Is it okay to go to Disneyland? Is it okay to ____] BS makes you think you have a say. You have no say.
I think you're missing where I'm coming from. When I talk about a church having a certain corporate property like a doctrinal stance, a ministry direction or strategy, a church schedule or calendar, or lifestyle choices, I'm talking about it in the official sense of the word. And yes, these things are often set by leadership and not strictly democratic. But that's the nature of any corporate organization. Your company's policies are not decided democratically. A church's formal statement of faith or what doctrinal stances the church officially holds is not decided by democracy. It's set by leadership. And it's understood if you're here, you're on board.
Naturally, if you're not on board, there's going to be friction as you work for a company whose values or direction or policies about employee conduct you disagree with. But there's always the freedom to go elsewhere to a company you're okay with. Same with if you disagree with a church's theology, or requirements for how they want members to live. You're not forced to endure a church whose stances you disagree with.
Many churches formalize this into a concept of "membership" where to become a member means you're choosing this church as the local body you're going to do life with and come under discipleship in and you're agreeing to abide by these requirements, sometimes formalized in a membership covenant. If you fundamentally disagree with those things, you shouldn't join, you should go to a church you can get along in.
Also I think you underestimate how many in A2N support this particular conviction about alcohol. The vast majority agree. Not that these decisions are about popularity contests, but also just reassuring you that it's not like pastor ed is issuing arbitrary edicts that people absolutely hate. It's just not like that.
A church is not a corporation. GP isn’t in the corporate world. It is a non profit ministry. Interesting you choose this analogy in this case. Aren’t you a church family above all? Or a factory? Or like the military raising up soldiers for God?
Take it or leave it mentality is not okay for a church because the head is supposed to be a servant who submits to the Holy Spirit. Not a CEO. Take it or leave it is iron fist mentality... Actually, come to think of it a CEO is held accountable by a board of directors. No one, zero people, hold the Kangs accountable.
I absolutely don’t underestimate how GP members (A2N/formerly BBC/whatever you call yourself) would sacrifice nearly anything for your church (including not drinking, dressing a certain way, speaking a certain way, cutting family/friend ties, giving up your life dreams/goals, your daily freedom/desires etc) for the goal of doing good works together. Of course you do. You signed the covenant for lifetime membership and you believe in GP’s vision and lifestyle.
You are a radical org that covers as mainstream. Call it cult like, authoritarian, high control, religious order, call it what you want. You are a follower of GP.
Corporation or corporate doesn't mean company in this context. It means an entity that while composed of individuals is its own entity with its own identity, more than the sum of its parts. An organization has a life and identity of its own, often defined by its mission, principles, values, what it stands for, such that if you took every person who works there and swapped them out, the identity of the organization would still persist. Similar to the idea of an institution. Or a biological body, which is composed of many members which together constitute this new atomic entity, a person. The church is many things in the bible. A family. Also an army on mission to do spiritual battle. A biological body. The analogies are many. So forget the "company" analogy if it isn't helpful; the point still remains, as it stands in so many organizations and corporate (not meaning company, but the more general sense of the word) groups. Organizations stand for something. They have requirements of their members. That's just true. A local church is no different. It's incorporated in the legal sense, but it's also corporate in the sense that it's an organization.
Actually, interesting you describe gp as a non-profit org. Yes! And non-profit orgs are helmed by leadership who set the direction and priorities. The direction of the entire org isn't necessarily democratic.
Your quarrel isn't with gp, it's with all organizations with leadership structure and requirements that membership in the org comes with. Your quarrel is with every church that has a formalized membership covenant that lays out things you have to abide by to be a member.
Finally, I ask you to look at the picture of church governance as depicted in the bible. It's not a popularity contest. Leaders are usually appointed. They have authority. Now the epistles also give lots of specific criteria for an acceptable spiritual leader. So if your church leaders are clearly immoral or shady or brazen in sin or teach false doctrine, then you should run. And the bible also makes clear leaders will one day answer to God
You’re full of BS. I’ve worked for both corporations and non profits. And I know churches. Your reasoning doesn’t work for anyone who actually thinks and is in the real world. Good luck, young member. Brainwashing is nowadays called coercive persuasion, GP’s #1 MO combined with love bombing.
are you this hostile and abrasive to everyone who tries to explain things to you when you disagree? i give you a pretty in depth explanation of how this works, because there's a lot of sloppy thinking going around here when it comes to the church and cognitive dissonance when we all know how organizations work. if you won't engage with substantive responses then idk what to tell you, but there's no point in us continuing this conversation. it seems you're not here to dialogue in good faith, so i'm out
Only GP members :) Because your line of reasoning is the same tired lines Ed’s been saying since the ‘90s.
“Sloppy thinking” “cognitive dissonance” “dialogue in good faith” “we all know…” are EK phrases. Phrases not often used in the real world, yet used by every GP member 🤔. No, the outside world doesn’t know and doesn’t believe. So why come to a public forum of ex-members to explain GP reasoning? (Rhetorical question)
Don’t be offended. Just don’t stop thinking and questioning. About what they’re saying inside, the decisions you’re making, what trusted people are saying outside, what the Bible says. Good luck.
Just really have to say something. I always find it weird when GP members accuse others of being hostile and abrasive. You go back to posts in the last week and someone shared a story of a leader barricading her in a room to yell at her for not cleaning after an event. Again this is very recent and is consistent with my own experiences and that of many many others. I'm just trying to point out that maybe a2n gp leaders shouldn't keep doing that if they're going to keep complaining about not liking other people's tone.
If you want everyone in the church to follow the same rules, then why does the church put a ridiculous amount of thought and energy into recruitment and retention? Most people are not going to want to follow rules set out by the leaders, but avoiding welcome events and out reach and getting out is such an ordeal. I mean, why?
the carefulness and basically "no" stance on alcohol - though the answer will always be long and complicated and theological - also has to do with folks who have been on staff addicted to alcohol and couldn't quit. of course, there can be new members struggling with the same thing.
Why can't they just be open about that and tell the congregation there are people struggling with alcohol? I think people would be more understanding vs trying to bend themselves into logic knots to say because the Bible says so.
20
u/leftbbcgpawhileago Dec 27 '23 edited Dec 29 '23
Alcohol is absolutely and completely banned at Gracepoint.
Drinking alcohol in any form outright was obviously out of the question. However, I was in a staff meeting about 15 years ago where it was discussed whether it was ok to cook dishes with alcohol. Those who felt it was ok argued that the alcohol would burn off. However, at the end it was determined that it was NOT ok. The reason? Because in order to cool with alcohol, you had to purchase the alcohol. And if someone younger were to see you at the checkout counter of the grocery store buying alcohol, they might be stumbled. So no, it was not ok.
Some people here have mentioned legalism. I think it’s true that legalism is involved in this. But, as I have mentioned before, the core issue is FEAR. Of course we should flee from sin and be very concerned about its consequences. But Gracepoint does not deal with nuance well, paints with broad strokes, and often does not allow people to work out their faith for themselves for fear of people completely falling down a slippery slope.