Your money and your heart

Braddon Upex manages to introduce two controversial notes into his Epilogue article. The idea of “toasting” Jesus is hard to reconcile with the biblical doctrines of the thrice-holy God, the fact that Jesus is the Lord of glory, Paul's bowing before Christ and the picture of the one seated at the right hand of the Father. Apart from that, a toast usually implies a wish for long life and prosperity for someone, hardly appropriate or necessary for our Lord and Saviour.

The second topic got me marvelling as a virtual teetotaller at the wonderful way I have escaped trouble in the dangerously deviate life I have lived. On the other hand, in a society where alcohol causes great problems it is just possible that teetotalism is marginally better than a life of drunkenness. I am sure my liver, brain, and in fact most of my body would agree.

David Morrison of Springwood, AUS (15/10/2007)

Your recent articles on money were right on the money. It seems to me that much evangelical complaining about Pentecostal ‘prosperity doctrine’ has a cheap-shot quality to it. We rail against a teaching about prosperity, while all the while pursuing a lifestyle of prosperity. We’re surely right to oppose such a teaching, but to do so while embracing a prosperity lifestyle seems hypocritical. At least Pentecostal affluence is in keeping with what they teach. Do we pride ourselves on a superior teaching, and yet remain expert at ignoring the implications of that teaching? Would the cars in my church car park look any different to those at Hillsong? I doubt it. Your articles have forced me to take another good hard look at myself. Thanks.

Matthew Arkapaw of Riverwood, AUS (16/10/2007)

Al Stewart's article “Your money and your heart” (Briefing #349) ended with a rocket. The giving statistics he gave were absolutely jaw-dropping when you think about it: jaw-dropping in an appalled and horrified kind of way. Yet no doubt giving is often like this in our churches. It made me think.

I was in a fairly wealthy church once where I really got to know the people in my congregation. I even got to know their financial situations. Al is right. There was a lot of money in their pockets. They were also very convinced and eager Christians. They admitted that they had a lot of money to give to church, but were reluctant to do so.

The church wasn't asking for more money. The budget was being met. The minister was a fabulous, godly man, but was a bit lacking in vision and strategy. Perhaps these Christians were rationalising their lack of giving. However I wonder whether they might not have given a lot, lot more, if they were asked to give and shown where the money would go. Perhaps they felt guilty that they weren't just giving it away to God in any case. However if the minister excites the congregation with visions of employing, as Al said, pastors, evangelists, church planters, ministry apprentices ... perhaps the money would have been forthcoming.

I was later in a wealthy church which raised its budget one year by 15% and collected an extra couple of million on top of that for its building project. This means that there was a lot of money sitting in people's pockets. One wonders why it wasn't being given before this. However once asked, it was given.

Perhaps more money would be forthcoming sometimes if it were asked for, and if it was for good ministry. Perhaps.

Martin Pakula of Lilydale, AUS (16/10/2007)

The topic of tithing was raised in two of your articles in Issue 349 of The Briefing. I think that it is not the amount of the giving that matters, but the attitude that we demonstrate when we bring to the Lord the firstfruits of his blessing to us, rather than offering to Him our left-over loose change. In so doing, as Al Stewart says, we acknowledge the rightful place of God in our lives and our reliance upon him for all things. Deuteronomy 8:17-18 expresses it like this, “You may say to yourself, ‘My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me.’ But remember the Lord your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth, and so confirms his covenant.”

Secondly, Ben Pfahlert has shown the effectiveness of following Paul's model of fundraising in his approach to the graduates of RMIT who had been involved in the ministry as students. Paul doesn't plan a fete or a progressive dinner when there is a need for funds. The Corinthians are a church with which Paul has a personal relationship. In 2 Corinthians chapters 8 and 9 he places the need before the Corinthians, reminds of Jesus example and the blessing they have received from his generosity, and tells them that their giving not only supplies the needs of God's people but is also overflowing in many expressions of thanks to God (9:12). They are not to expect something material in return. Paul does go further, in a direct and frank manner, to refer to the Corinthians pledge and to make a comparison with the generosity of the Macedonian churches. God grant that we may be generous and overflowing with expressions of thanks to God and not need to be shamed into giving to those in need and in support of the Lord's work.

Philip Cooney of Wentworth Falls, AUS (16/10/2007)

I appreciated reading ‘WWJD (What Would Jesus Drink?)’ in The Briefing (Issue 349). The article was well-written, balanced, Bible-based and extremely worrying.

I've been a school teacher, and now principal, for over 40 years. Some time ago, a colleague in his early 30's admitted his chronic alcoholism to the Principal and staff, joined A.A. & led a staff workshop on the matter.

One in ten people who drink will become alcoholics, he told us. Their problem is not always obvious. A problem drinker may be sitting next to you at work, in the Uni tutorial, at church on Sunday. They may be your son or daughter. They are your weaker brother.

At the workshop led by my alcoholic colleague, we talked a lot about modelling—as teachers do. Christian teachers try to model behaviours to their students which they might respect and imitate. Society and the media certainly throw up plenty of models of successful people for whom alcohol is an integral part of the good life.

Like teachers, all Christians have the privilege and responsibility of modelling a radically different way of being in the world. In regard to alcohol, there is so much alcohol abuse in our society that people need alternative models to help them see that you can have a good time, you can be a good mate, you can enjoy the footy, have fun at the party or the pub, without drinking alcohol.

Maybe I am too cynical about the capacity of Christian men and women—if they drink—to be self-disciplined in regard to alcohol, though I do suspect that I have the Bible on my side when it comes to a lack of confidence in human nature. Perhaps I've seen too many drunk Christians and known too many Christian alcoholics.

My two sons have been jazz musicians working in the Sydney professional music scene. Like me, they are both wowsers. Some of their music mates couldn't work out why they didn't drink, smoke, swear or indulge in sex and drugs. None of my children or their spouses, nor my wife or myself has ever found not drinking alcohol an obstacle to developing good friendships. It has never been an embarrassment to them or to their mates. Indeed it has provided numerous opportunities to talk about the Lord Jesus.

I cannot fault Braddon's article—as far as it goes—in its use of the Bible to support drinking alcohol in moderation. In the absence of a Biblical prohibition against drinking, it is clearly a matter of Gospel freedom and wise, godly choices.

For my family and me at least, this is the real issue: in our alcohol-soaked society; a society dominated by a multi-million dollar alcohol industry and advertising machine; a society bearing the costs of alcohol-induced health issues, crime, family violence in both black and white communities; and alcohol related carnage on our roads; for God's sake and people's sake—isn't there more to say than WWJD?

Finally, no moderate drinker ever intends to become an alcoholic. However, many will.

Am I my brother's keeper? Too right I am!

Do I have a responsibility to my weaker brother? Too right I do!

My younger son calls alcohol the Devil's urine. The description makes for a good laugh, but it's a sober perspective worth considering.

I join Braddon and his friend Julia in toasting the Lord Jesus—only make mine a lemon squash!

George Glanville of Blaxland, AUS (24/10/2007)

I very rarely take exception to articles in The Briefing and look forward to reading it every month. However I found the Epilogue in the October 2007 issue both unreasonable and upsetting.

It seems that the writer is not aware of the Biblical principle found in Romans 14:1-23 and 1 Corinthians 10:23 to 11:1, which deals with the issue of doing something which is acceptable to me, but which causes another person to stumble. This is a principle I have stood by for over fifty years of Christian experience, especially in the area of alcohol. I have found it to be God-honouring and liberating, and it has helped me to lift others up as I have served the Lord both in youth work and the pastorate.

I can accept being called a killjoy, and have my position as a teetotaller being likened to a desert, by those who are not Christians (interestingly I have always been treated with respect by non-Christians), but from one who professes to follow the Lord I cannot understand. And how is it ‘dangerous’ to ‘deviate’ towards abstention?

I have many Christian friends and family members who drink alcohol, and many who don’t. I see no evidence of greater Pharisaism in the one group than the other. Surely the writer is not saying he is better than drunks or teetotallers!!

Abstaining from alcohol never killed anybody, but a drunk driver killed my aunt on a pedestrian crossing on Christmas Eve. Abstaining from alcohol never caused ruin to a family, but I know too many homes which are miserable through drink. Abstaining from alcohol never damaged a person’s body, but what will be the state of many of our young people in a few years. Abstaining from alcohol never caused a young Christian to ruin his witness to unsaved relatives, but I know someone who drank more than he should, and did.

I do not want anyone to be on my conscience because they followed my example, went too far, and ended in tragedy. May our liberty not become chains for someone else.

Colin Paris of Bournemouth, UK (24/10/2007)

Dear Mr Glanville

Thank you for your response to my article, which the folk at The Briefing passed on to me. It was flattering that you read and engaged with my piece and took the time to write a reply. What was even more gratifying was the tone of your letter—may all those who disagree with me (about this and any other matter) be so gentle with me! I suspect our Lord would probably be more pleased by the tone of your letter (on a subject you are passionate about) than by my article (which, He knows, was written and submitted for publication out of all sorts of motives, including vanity).

There are a few things I wish to say in response to your letter.

First, you are quite right in asking the rhetorical question, “isn't there more to say than WWJD?” Indeed there is—much more, including some of things that you mention in your letter. Of course, a one-page article cannot provide more than a very limited treatment of as a broad and complicated a subject as alcohol. It was therefore necessary for me to select what I would deal with (and, hence, what I wouldn't or couldn't deal with—if only by implication); for example, as I indicate in my article, when discussing the Biblical principles on alcohol, I discuss only (what I consider to be) the three main ones; I readily acknowledge there are more. I must admit I was aware as I wrote it that it was deficient in that it did not address the situation of the Christian with a drinking problem. It is certainly possible I erred in what I chose to address and, more to the point, what I chose not to address.

Secondly, I'm not sure I would agree with your colleague that a problem drinker is my “weaker brother”—at least not in the sense that I believe Paul is using that term in Romans (14?). Certainly, he is my neighbour—or, if a Christian, my brother. Certainly, he has a weakness and if I am not sensitive to that weakness I am not loving him as myself let alone as Jesus loved me (thus am in breach of the Second Greatest Commandment or the New Commandment). However, my understanding is that Paul defines the weaker brother in terms of that brother's beliefs, rather than that brother's behaviour (of course, the two are closely linked)—which is why I do not think a problem drinker is necessarily my “weaker brother” in the sense Paul is using that term (he only would be if he also held certain beliefs).

Thirdly, I agree that “all Christians have the privilege and responsibility of modelling a radically different way of being in the world”. I also agree that there is benefit is providing alternative models to help people see that “you can have a good time, you can be a good mate, you can enjoy the footy, have fun at the party or the pub, without drinking alcohol”. However, I would suggest that there is also benefit in showing them they can do all these things while drinking alcohol in moderation (as opposed to drinking it in excess). This is for various reasons, including (but not limited to) a (cynically?) pragmatic one born of the belief that they are probably going to drink, anyway, and that convincing them to drink in moderation is a more achievable aim than convincing them not to drink at all.

It may surprise you to learn that the one thing in your letter I'm a little uncomfortable with is your son's jocular reference to alcohol as “the Devil's urine”. Basically, I'm not comfortable with the notion of crediting the Devil as the source of something I consider A Good Thing. (Having said this, I can understand why, viewing alcohol as I gather he does, your son should feel comfortable about describing it in such a fashion.) I suppose my position is that alcohol is not a curse inflicted by the Devil but a good gift of God which (like so many of His good gifts) is all too often abused by sinful mankind.

In your letter, you refer to yourself and your sons as “wowsers”. Presumably, you are picking up on my use of the term in my article. However, from the little I know about you, I wouldn't consider you a wowser. My rough definition of a wowser would be something along the lines of “a person who tries to prevent (as distinct from, say, dissuade) others from drinking, especially through the enactment of legislation”. (A fuller definition would probably include reference to certain other activities, such as gambling.) My point is that, in my book, a person who chooses not to drink is not necessarily a wowser—it depends on what the person does concerning others drinking. However, in your letter you state that drinking “is clearly a matter of Gospel freedom and wise, godly choices”. (I agree.) Your commitment to Gospel freedom means that that you cannot be a wowser according to my definition of the term.

Finally, a confession: I can't honestly recall what I was drinking the night I was at the pub with Julia. It might have been beer or wine—but it just as easily could've been juice or soft drink. You see, I actually don't drink very often or very much when I do (with a couple of exceptions, I normally don't like the taste of alcoholic beverages—or, at least, not like them as much as the taste of certain non-alcoholic ones) and when in a pub I'm probably just as likely (if not more likely) to order a guava or cranberry juice (but not a cappuccino—I won't make that mistake again). So on purely gustatory grounds, I'd be more than happy to join you in toasting our Lord with lemon squash (provided it's Lift—I actually consider myself something of a connoisseur when it comes to lemon squash and more of a judge of lemon squash than of wine or beer).

Once again, thank you for the civil and moderate tone of your letter—if only all disagreements between Christians could be conducted in such a spirit (no pun intended!).

Your brother in Christ,

Braddon Upex (24/10/2007)

I really enjoyed Al Stewart's article on my money and my heart. If I was really honest, the biggest problems I have had with my relationship with God during my 27 years as a Christian would mainly revolve around my money and my use of it. It's almost as though I have at times sectioned off my heart when it comes to money talk. I agree with Al when he says, “To put it crassly, the way you handle your money shows what you really believe about God”. I then get to a passage in the Bible that is directly spoken to me as a rich person and I get scared. No-one mentioned this passage in the Briefing articles last month that I could find. It comes from 1 Timothy 6:17-19. Paul says to Timothy, here is what I want you to tell rich people. Tell them, “Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment.” So far, so good. I'm feeling OK. I forgot to tell you that I'm happy to call myself rich. After all I am in the top 4% of wage earners in the world so I figure I must be one of the rich ones. If I don't admit that much, then I'm kidding myself. Anyway, Timothy goes on to scare me even more. He says in verse 18, “Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share”. So Timothy, how generous and willing to share do you want me to be? After all, I'm not as rich as some people. There are people in the top 3% that should be taking this passage far more seriously than me. Does this mean I have to share with just people in my church, my neighbourhood, my country or my world? Timothy, some people have told me that if I just worry about telling people the Gospel I might be able to skip these couple of verses. I skipped them for a long time convincing myself that I wasn't rich. Then some helpful person gave me some statistics a little while ago that mucked that up for me. I realised I was rich. Please pray that I take seriously the words of Timothy because I know that as Al Stewart said, “The way I handle my money really does show me what I believe about God”.

Colin Watson of Wahroonga (24/10/2007)

A dramatic rise in severe alcohol-induced liver disease, often fatal; hitherto found mainly among older people, now significant in teenage girls. More schoolchildren admitted weekly to clinics coping with drink problems. Late-night train journeys and top-deck bus-rides increasingly unpleasant, threatening or even dangerous because of the booze-sodden youngsters (and middle-aged men) on board.

The crime rate, including serious offences like rape and domestic violence, but also many less dramatic ones, fuelled by strong drink available round the clock.

Drink-related road deaths reported weekly in the local paper, often after a wedding-party or pub celebration; surprise, surprise.

Alcohol as a far more widespread menace than hard drugs which get the headlines—and the cash resources to cope. Town centres and High Street, not just in the inner-cities but in the leafy suburbs, becoming flash-points for fights as pubs, clubs and restaurants pour out.

All this, and much more, as 2007 closes. Hardly the time, is it, to brand as Pharisees (well, nearly) those who opt for an alcohol-free lifestyle (Briefing, October). “The desert of teetotalism”? Come visit my tent for a moment.

I gave up my small alcohol intake before I was twenty. I had never heard of worldliness, evangelical taboos, or those ‘killjoy’ temperance freaks; it just seemed a bit greedy to indulge in absurdly expensive and often lethal liquids when so many in our world were literally dying for a drink of clean water.

Much later, I discovered that the strong drink of today bears little relation to the regular wine referred to and rejoiced over in the Bible, being now far stronger and no longer the only safe and available option.

Later, too, I made the acquaintance of the cider-swilling alkies on the inner-London park benches, tidying up some of the empties before church on a Sunday morning. None of these set out with the aim of becoming incurable; these former journalists, sportsmen, actors, soldiers, teachers and office workers all began with social drinking: all this ‘moderate’ stuff we hear about in the standard sermon or evangelical article today.

Two things stand out for me; how easy it is to see the Pharisee in other people; so handy! And the moderate drinker is no comfort whatsoever to the reforming alcoholic who has by the grace of God turned the corner and given it up. He or she wants to know that it's actually possible to do without the stuff and not join the new class of social or religious outcasts because we don't join in what everyone else is doing.

Christopher Idle of Bromley, UK (21/11/2007)

During 2003 on an interstate holiday trip, my wife and I visited lifetime friends at Tamworth NSW. One of these who subscribed to The Briefing, gave me a gift subscription. I have enjoyed the articles written, even though some are rather “academically written”.

I am a farmer in a low rainfall area, and the drought has affected us greatly this season. However, I am also a practising Christian, and farm by trust and faith in the Lord and His word in the Bible. Your October 2007 issue #349 is particularly confirmation to the way of handling our giving and trusting the Lord, putting Him first in everything, and thanking Him for His provision in all areas of living in this world. My wife and I are members of Port Pirie Baptist Church. Even though times are tough on the land farming, we are not in debt and joyfully are able to give to the Lord's work without any reduction. Thank you for your encouraging articles. God bless you and yours in Christ.

R J (Ray) Beyer of Port Pirie, AUS (21/11/2007)

I did enjoy Ben Pfahlert's creative approach to fundraising in ‘Putting the FUN back in fundraising’ (Briefing #349), and the freshness of his article's message.

Just by way of comment on ‘tithing’ from a personal experience (in the hope that tithing is not minimized or trivialized in the light of both Old and New Testament teaching from the Scriptures): my ‘non-Christian and non-church-going’ husband was a generous man prior to his conversion in 1985—except in the area of my church ‘offering’. However, upon his conversion and his avid reading of the Bible, we believed that tithing was the godly approach.

Choosing the tithe was fraught with difficulties. We had accumulated quite a deal of debt, and tithing could further frustrate this. However, we chose to tithe. My father—always very prudent in his spending and not known to be a generous man—presented us with a cheque one day which covered all our debt! We saw it as God honouring our commitment. That generosity has not been replicated, and while we don't have great wealth, our tithing has continued to be the minimum of our giving.

Yvonne Magrath of Alstonville NSW, AUS (21/01/2008)