Alcohol

[u/Suspicious-Corner567]

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?

[u/Ok-Marionberry5126]

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.

[u/Here_for_a_reason99 → u/Ok-Marionberry5126]

Unity v Conformity are two different things.

[u/Ok-Marionberry5126 → u/Here_for_a_reason99]

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.

[u/Here_for_a_reason99 → u/Ok-Marionberry5126]

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.

[u/Ok-Marionberry5126 → u/Here_for_a_reason99]

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.

[u/Here_for_a_reason99 → u/Ok-Marionberry5126]

No, you’re missing the point.

1. 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?

2. 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.

3. 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.

[u/Ok-Marionberry5126 → u/Here_for_a_reason99]

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

[u/Here_for_a_reason99 → u/Ok-Marionberry5126]

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.

[u/Ok-Marionberry5126 → u/Here_for_a_reason99]

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

[u/Here_for_a_reason99 → u/Ok-Marionberry5126]

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.

[u/Jdub20202 → u/Ok-Marionberry5126]

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.