The Shop That Sells Alcohol Beside the Church
A member of a small evangelical congregation in Nassau owns a convenience store directly opposite the church. He has begun selling beer and wine because margins on groceries are thin and two nearby competitors do the same. The church board has asked him to stop, citing the congregation's teaching on alcohol and the risk to young people who pass the store daily on their way to youth group. The owner argues that he employs six people, pays his tithe faithfully, does not drink himself, and that his customers include responsible adults who would simply walk to the competitor. He also notes that the church has never objected to the restaurant two doors down that serves wine. A parent has complained that her teenage son was offered money to buy beer for older youths outside the shop.
1. Distinguish between the questions of personal morality, professional responsibility and public scandal in this case, and explain why the church board's concern is not simply about alcohol.
Read the worked answer
Three distinct questions are tangled here and should be separated.
Personal morality concerns what the owner himself does and approves. He does not drink and is not endorsing drunkenness. On a purely individual standard, he may see no wrongdoing in himself.
Professional responsibility concerns his duties as a business owner: to obey licensing law, to refuse sales to minors, and to ensure staff do the same. The report that his shop was used to solicit an adult purchase is a genuine failure of that duty, and it is a failure regardless of whether alcohol is sold, since the same could happen with tobacco. This is the part of the complaint that is least arguable.
Public scandal concerns the effect of his visible conduct on others' ability to believe and practise. The tradition uses the idea of scandal - conduct that leads another into sin or undermines their faith - and it weighs heavily on those with visible roles. A shop directly opposite the church, run by a tithing member, sends a message that the congregation's teaching is optional. The restaurant two doors down does not carry that message because its owner has made no such profession.
The board's concern is therefore not simply "alcohol is bad". It is that a member in a representative position has created a visible contradiction, and that the position of the shop exposes young people to a specific and evidenced risk. The owner's argument that customers would go elsewhere answers the question of his commercial loss but not the question of scandal, because scandal attaches to the visible witness, not to the total national consumption of beer.
2. The board proposes three options: demand he stop selling alcohol, remove him from membership, or accept his decision and drop the matter. Assess each option.
Read the worked answer
Option 1: demand he stop. This treats a prudential judgement as a condition of membership. It is defensible only if the congregation's teaching clearly forbids members from selling alcohol, and if that standard is applied consistently - including to the restaurant owner if he is a member, and to any member who profits indirectly. The strength of this option is that it protects the church's public witness and responds to the youth worker's concern. The weakness is that it may exceed what the tradition actually requires, since many Christian bodies permit alcohol in moderation and object to drunkenness rather than to commerce. A demand made without a clear, consistently applied standard will look like pressure from a vocal group.
Option 2: remove him from membership. This is the most severe and should be the last resort. Disciplinary exclusion is normally reserved for serious and persistent wrongdoing after warning, and its purpose is restoration, not punishment. Removing a tithing, employed, non-drinking member over a lawful trade would be disproportionate and would likely fracture the congregation. It also punishes his six employees indirectly.
Option 3: accept and drop the matter. This avoids conflict but abandons the youth worker and the parent, and leaves the inconsistency unaddressed. It also fails the owner, who needs clear guidance about the minors issue.
Best route: separate the non-negotiable from the negotiable. The minors issue is non-negotiable - staff training, refusal policy, signage, and a report to the board within a month. The alcohol question should be handled through persuasion, a clear written statement of the congregation's teaching, and a fair deadline, with the option of a phased withdrawal from alcohol sales. This preserves both the church's witness and the owner's dignity, and it applies one standard to all members rather than singling him out.