|
Letter from AmericaWe all have our blind spotsI was recently alerted to a rather surprising clause in an application for missionary funding from a major denomination in the United States. As all large sending agencies, this denomination admirably desires to ensure that its missionaries will be exemplary witnesses to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Then there is the surprising clause. Diverse activities?Under a heading concerning moral matters, the applicant is asked to confirm or deny whether he or she has engaged in diverse activities of a less than salutary nature over the last year. Apparently (I have not myself read the form but had it described to me), there is an indication at the top that grace will be given for moral matters, presumably referring to the questions regarding pornography and the like. Included, however, in this list of probable ‘defeaters’ for an applicant, though, is a further question asking whether an applicant has drunk alcohol in the last year. I am told that one previous applicant was rejected for having answered yes to the alcohol question because he had cooked with alcohol in the last year. Said applicant, by the way, was a chef. People in glass houses should not cast stones, and we all have our blind spots, but there is something about this that is more than a little unnerving. As one missionary mentioned to me, this clause about alcohol effectively means that they would not support Jesus, who at least drunk wine with his disciples at the Last Supper (not to mention turning several gallons of water into the stuff at his first miracle in Cana). ConscienceRegarding the alcohol, the focus of disturbance seems to be the elevation of a conscience issue to that of a non-negotiable. We all know people whose lives have been ruined by alcohol. We certainly do not want our missionaries drunkards, any more than we want them sucked into the internet nether regions. But does not the Bible give us some fairly clear teaching on matters that Christians disagree about, such as this of being teetotal or not? Are we not ourselves to do only that which comes from faith, a confidence in what is right before God, or else that is sin for us (Romans 15.23)? Are we not to avoid judging a brother, as if he were our servant, when really he is God’s (1 Corinthians 4.1-5)? Are we not to be careful of the weaker conscience of each other, meaning whoever is in the weaker position in terms of not only being more pernickety but also more isolated (1 Corinthians 8.12)? In short, are we not to treat this as a conscience matter, not as something to exclude on a par with adultery? As I say, we all have our weak spots. I wonder what are the equivalent non-biblical barriers constructed to real evangelical fellowship among Christian organisations in the UK? We are less prone to long written constitutional frameworks, so ours may be more subtle, less spoken, more intrinsic to our cultural modus operandum. Are there barriers to our fellowship based on accent or class? Are there restraints to real gospel synergy that stem from old war wounds long licked that were once inflicted by one evangelical group upon another? Do we expect people to look a certain way, sound a certain way, use certain key phrases? I don’t know what our blind spots are, but I’m sure we have them. Thinking we don’t have any blind spots seems to be a bit like thinking we’re humble. Perhaps you think I’m being a bit hard on the alcohol vetoing brigade (I know Josh, you say! I remember him taking a speaker out for a beer after a meeting!) But consider: this same major denominational organisation makes no mention of smoking. Can it be any coincidence that its denominational headquarters are near the heartland of American tobacco production? I’ve heard tell of leaders of these churches nipping out for a quick puff on a cigarette between Sunday School and church. But that one should have a glass of alcohol! Let it not be so! Josh Moody,
|