Bible studies and drinking beer in a bar…do they go together? According to Axis church, which has ties to a ‘church planting’ group called Acts 29, yes, they do. Guess who founded Acts 29 {I’m sure many of you already know, this isn’t new ‘news’}? Here’s the news story…
One of the first rules for ministers starting a new church: Don’t hang out in your office. Go out and meet people.
That’s an easy one for the Rev. Jeremy Rose to follow.
His startup congregation in Nashville, known as The Axis Church, doesn’t have a building or any office space. On Monday night, Rose and five guys from his church sat around a table at J & J’s Market & Cafe in Nashville, drinking beer and talking about Jesus.
Rose admits that a Bible study in a bar may sound odd to some churchgoers, but he contends Jesus was called a drunkard because he went to too many parties.
“If you’re going to be accused of being a sinner,” Rose said, “you should at least hang around where they are once in a while.”
The Axis Church, which started last year, is one of three local churches with ties to a church-planting group called Acts 29 — a name chosen because the biblical book ends with 28 chapters. Founded by Seattle megachurch pastor Mark Driscoll, the group has already launched 200 new churches.
Acts 29 primarily attracts young men with its unconventional approach to religion, and the group has close to 100 new churches in the works. But some wonder if its methods undermine its message.
The official Southern Baptist news service has run articles critical of Driscoll. At last year’s Southern Baptist Convention, Morris Chapman, president of the convention’s executive committee, criticized Driscoll for using risqué language in the pulpit.
“To hide the light of the Gospel under the bushel of cultural compromise is a grievous sin against the Holy Spirit,” he said. “… The sacred desk is no place for the carnal, the sexual and the sensational.”
The Missouri Baptist Convention banned any of its church planters from working with the Acts 29 network.
Acts 29 is one of about a dozen U.S. church-planting networks, nondenominational groups that start new congregations. Nancy Ammerman, professor of sociology at Boston University, said these networks have become common since the 1990s. Often founded by megachurch pastors, they offer some of the benefits that denominations provide — such as an identifiable brand name and oversight for pastors — without much bureaucracy.
News source-Tennessean
The so-called “Axis Church” ain’t a church. While saints of the living God can certainly go to bars to witness, such activity does not constitute a church. These would be pastors are following Rick Warren’s example of asking goats what they want in the way of spiritual food. They are, as Paul Washer might say, little boys in short pants playing at the work God has ordained to His servants.
It is a pity the SBC does not kick such “churches” out of the convention.
Hmmmmmmm………..
I too have an issue with this; it is difficult to know where the line is drawn.
There is a man in my church who used to be a drunk, God has freed him from this sinful addiction. Would it be okay to drink in front of such a brother?
Proverbs 23 speaks of the danger of ‘wine’, esp. verses 30, 31, ‘Those who linger long at the wine, Those who go in search of mixed wine. Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it swirls around smoothly’– It seems there is great temptation to even look on the wine, let alone drink it. I think it best to abstain from strong drink, just as we are commanded to flee sexual immorality and all sin. Why flirt with disaster?
“You may spend the money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or WINE, or STRONG DRINK, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.” ~Deut. 14:26
Apparently God doesn’t always look down on the enjoyment of alcoholic beverages.
Since God’s word does not contradict, we cannot assume He was condoning the partaking of this strong drink/wine. The King James gives a clearer understanding, ‘And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household’.
From Proverbs 20:1, ‘Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise’
‘Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine.’ Proverbs 23:29-30
‘Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.’ Proverbs 31:6-7
John MacArthur teaches this on biblical wine…’Now wine was a staple food in those days. I’ve heard people always say, “Well, you have to remember, the wine wasn’t fermented.” Oh yes it was. You try to make grape juice and they didn’t have any refrigerators and they didn’t have any preservatives, it was fermented and fermented fast. That was a hot area. Wine was a staple food in those days. In fact, back as far as Genesis 14:18, you remember Melchizedek showed up and brought bread and wine. They didn’t have the purification process, water was worse to drink than wine was. And in those parts of the world when it was hot, in the times of heat they would need to have their thirsts quenched. And wine was used with milk, and, of course, milk was used for other than festival occasions, milk was used much with children as it is today. But wine was the staple drink and it could be the wine from many different kind of fruit, many fruit juices but primarily from grapes because they lended themselves so well to the production of wine.
Now because there was no preservatives for that wine and because there was no freezing or refrigeration technique, there was the problem that the wine did ferment and develop an intoxicating power. Because of that and because they had to drink it because it was the only drink they had, its use became very, very definitely restricted, though very necessary because it was the drink of the day. And drunkenness became a monumental disgrace. In fact, in the time of Christ, for the most part, wine was a mixture of three parts water for every two parts of wine in order to eliminate this problem of drunkenness. But on a very warm occasion, on a hot time when a man would want to be working and want to quench his thirst, it would be very easy for him to become intoxicated with wine so the Bible put tremendous stringent rules on the consumption of wine and drunkenness, both Old Testament and New Testament, right? They teach explicitly about drunkenness, absolutely sinful. You say, “Do you think it’s wrong for a Christian to drink?” Not only wrong, unnecessary. In those days they were drinking it because they had to drink it and because God knew they had to drink it there were tight restrictions put on it. Today we’re eliminated from that necessity and drinking today is, of course, strictly and option and it’s an optional killer. It’s not a necessity anymore and above that it’s a stumbling block.’— from http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/1504B_Christs-First-Miracle?q=is+wine+fermented
He also states this…”It is my own personal conviction that I do not drink alcoholic beverages of any kind any time and there are several reasons why. Reason, and they’re not in a particularly spiritual order, but reason number one is the fact that I believe the Bible warns very, very strongly about drunkenness and very, very strongly about losing control in dissipation, Ephesians 5:18, “Be not drunk with wine in which is dissipation but be filled with the Spirit.” If I’m going to be under the control of something I want it to be the Holy Spirit, not some substance.
Beyond that I am convinced after studying the Word of God and studying the backgrounds around the Word of God that that wine which was imbibed in the time of the New Testament, and even in the Old Testament, was highly diluted with water, five to one, six to one, seven to one, eight to one. And wine…and they really drank water if you want to see the true picture and they simply purified the water by putting a little bit of fermented wine in it because it…it killed whatever else would be in the wine that might cause them some physical problems. But it was not the normal drink of the time of our Lord for people to drink unmixed wine. You read in the Bible about two kinds of drink, wine and strong drink. Strong drink was unmixed and those who drank strong drink drank it for the purpose of drowning their problems. The wine that was consumed in the Bible was very definitely mixed with water extensively. Because you lived in a warm climate, the land of Palestine was hot, the very fact of thirst could contribute to a high consumption of wine. In order to prevent drunkenness they mixed it with water so that your body could not hold the amount that it would take to inebriate you.
So, that simply to point out to you that I don’t think you can advocate wine drinking from the Bible unless you have diluted it sufficiently with water as they did in biblical times.
The other reason that I will give to you as to why I don’t believe that Christians should drink wine is simply because of what the apostle Paul says, “The kingdom of God is not food and drink,” Romans chapter 14. And he says if anything that I eat or drink offends my brother, I won’t do it. Now I have lived long enough to have dragged enough people out of saloons to have tried to patch up enough shattered devastated lives, to have tried to put together families and marriages that have been devastated by alcohol to have a healthy hatred for it. And since we live in a culture where alcohol is only an option, not a necessity, it seems to me without particular constraint for us to consume that kind of beverage. I certainly would not want to be responsible for giving someone else the idea that it was okay to drink alcoholic beverages and then watch them in an out-of-control way be destroyed by what they saw me do. And so, in deference to a weaker brother, in deference to not making someone stumble, I choose not to do that. And since there’s no compelling reason to do it because there are so many other things to drink, it has no place in my life.”- Pastor John MacArthur
Manfred,
Agreed that ‘a bar does not a church make.’
I would go one step further. We Blood-cleansed Christians should not even go into bars to witness… besides, there are plenty of lost souls in the supermarket.
Two concerns:
1. Would I be giving the wrong testimony about Christ just by being INSIDE of a bar?
2. Where do I draw the line in the end… clubs that cater to other fleshly sinful desires (I intentionally don’t even want to be more specific here)… etc.?
I know I’m preaching to the choir with you, Manfred… I just wanted to amplify your message.
In Jesus,
- Jeff H
Jeff H:
Your concern about giving the wrong testimony about Christ just by being inside a bar is, by my own personal experience, a justifiable concern. When I was a young Christian, I reasoned, “These people need Christ, so let’s go to them and give them the gospel”. So I did. Not only was it an unfruitful time, but one guy had the honesty to tell me (to paraphrase, as it was a long time ago): “Look, pal. I know what you’re trying to do here. But if you really are a Christian, you shouldn’t even be here. Your presence here tells me you’re just a hypocrite”. So much for my attempt to be “relevant”.
DavidW,
Ouch. Thank you for sharing your painful experience.
Blessings,
- Jeff H
I have the utmost respect for John MacArthur(and for the regular contributors to this site)…and I’m probably stirring up a hornets nest; but for the sake of fidelity to the scriptures it must be said. It is very,very clear in scripture ;drunkeness is a sin, drinking is not.After all Jesus’ first miracle was turning water into wine( and ever since the church has been trying to turn it back into water.)
To use an argument based on Rom 14″ The kingdom of God is not food and drink ” is a wrong application, as in context it is saying what you eat and drink is irrelevent.
Why is this important?..because it’s imperative the gospel is communicated accurately ,and there are too many who already think it has to do with what we don’t do rather than what Jesus has done.
I’m not saying I support Mark Driscoll only that the “should Christians drink” issue must be examined biblically and not culturally.
Regarding MacArthur’s argument, the same could be said about many things that I dare say he does – name any food, it will offend some and is not necessary. I agree with Mac on the importance of NOT being under the influence of alcohol, and that we are NOT to cause a BROTHER to stumble.
If the wine was diluted, as Mac concludes, that merely underscores the point of drinking with the aim of NOT getting drunk. It does forbid the drink.
We are not, to my knowledge, commanded to live so as to not offend unbelievers. I do not have a problem with the idea of gong to bar to witness – if a bar rat thinks I would be a hypocrite for doing so, he needs to hear the Gospel, rather than a defense of my actions.
If you went into a bar to witness, and you witnessed properly, you wouldn’t be there for very long. They’d kick you out pretty quick.
Bill,
If a witness of Christ was kicked out of a bar quickly, so be it, similar to the disciples being told not to waste much time in towns wherein people did not want to hear them.
That reaction is not a reason to avoid such, as we are to proclaim Christ crucified to dead creatures everywhere.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Romans 14 is referring to strong drink, or alcohol. The bible does condemn drunkenness; what leads to this condition? Drinking strong drink. I, for one, used to drink to get a buzz, I never drank for ‘social’ purposes, nor did anyone I know. I would be horrified if I were to consume a strong drink, be seen by a brother/sister weak in the faith, and cause them to stumble. I know from experience early on in my walk with Christ, before He freed me from cigarette smoking, I was witnessing to a young man; the first thing he did was point out my smoking!
For those who choose to drink alcohol, that is your perogative. I choose to remain free from the vices Satan uses to try and lure/tempt me. This Christian walk is enough of a struggle without me adding more strife to it.
It should be noted that this article you’re linking to is highly inaccurate in it’s core claims.
1. The church does not meet at a bar. It meets at a community center.
2. The “bar” the story references, JJ’s, is primarily a coffee shop and convenience market that happens to also serve beer. Look it up on City Seach, Yelp, or Urban Spoon. A men’s group meets there.
This is poor and misleading journalism.
Argue all you want about whether Christians should consume alcohol, but please don’t promote salacious stories to slander other Christians.
Nick
Nick
This is the ONLY post that will be allowed from a Driscoll fan, and only to point out the errors. First of all, if a business serves alcohol, it is a bar, regardless of what else it serves.
Second of all, this so-called pastor of this so-called church makes this statement, ‘Jesus was called a drunkard because he went to too many parties’, and you defend him as ‘Christian? Where in God’s word do we find scriptural proof to back such a claim? You won’t find it…period. It is man’s attempt to continue to live in the flesh, drinking and claiming it’s okay, after all, you’re having a bible study…
Nick, I don’t think the story is inaccurate at all. Nor do I see any bad journalism, what I see is a bad example of Christianity.
Nick ~
Did you read this line:
“Rose admits that a Bible study in a bar may sound odd to some churchgoers,”
It says that Jeremy Rose admits (which means he said) to talking about a bar. As a former Journalism major, that is not an error by the writer of the story. The only way it could be is if the writer of the story had a personal agenda to write the story that way.
The bad journalism claim that you are making is wrong unless you can prove that the journalist knew that Mr. Rose was not referring to the coffee shop as a bar and yet made it seem like that is what Mr. Rose was referring to.
Nick,
Nice selective quoting there, Nick!
David T made a challenge to you and your groundless accusation:
“The bad journalism claim that you are making is wrong unless you can prove that the journalist knew that Mr. Rose was not referring to the coffee shop as a bar and yet made it seem like that is what Mr. Rose was referring to.
How about it Nick… Where’s your proof?
Nick,
Ah, but that’s not what you implied in your accusation against the author.
Two points, 1st from David T’s quote above:
2nd point:
Nick,
when I said I would allow your one post, I meant it. All of your posts have been deleted, except your first one.
I’ve been away at work, and I see you’ve posted several more times, repeating the same worthless argument. I am not sure why you are trying so hard to discredit this news story, other than the fact that it reflects the bad fruit of Driscoll and his ‘church planting’. The pastor in the article references to being in a bar, as David T and Jeff H have both pointed out. Secondly, regardless of what you call it, they serve alcohol…that’s a fact you cannot twist. So your point seems irrelevant.
You conveniently overlooked my question concerning this quote by Rose, ‘Jesus was called a drunkard because he went to too many parties.’ Where is this found in scripture? You wormed out of it with a lame excuse.
Driscoll talks a good talk, making sure his t’s are crossed and his i’s dotted when it comes to his theology, however, his fruit does not line up with what he says he believes.
Defcon is not ‘Driscoll friendly’. I have no use for a man who claims to be a follower of Christ, yet speaks vulgarity from the pulpit, twists God’s word, and tries way too hard to be cool and relevant with this immoral culture. May God have mercy on Mark Driscoll, and all who follow his sensual, fleshly teachings.
Your time here is done, you have no scriptural basis for your defense, and you keep repeating yourself and have wore out your welcome in doing so.
mskendall ~
I have posted this link before but am going to do it again just for you:
http://thechristianworldview.com/tcwblog/archives/1640
Do the words you read on that website that Mark Driscoll has spoken sound like he is a Godly man?
mskendall, you are right, your post will not get approved. Why? Because it is a repeat of what Nick came here and posted, with only a few word changes. Driscoll defenders will not be allowed, for obvious reasons. There have been enough posts here speaking out against Driscoll and his vulgarity [among other things] which have resulted in his ‘fans’ coming to his defense. This post is not for Driscoll’s defense, he has none. It is to verify more bad fruit from his brand of thinking.
There is no biblical defense that can be made for someone who tickles the ear; we’ve heard it all and have grown tired of it. That’s why even opinions in his favor will never grace the comment section of this post.
Mr. Driscoll loves alcohol, and goes to great length attempting to justify it by perverting the character of God. For example, he said Jesus “kicks off His ministry as a bartender”, and that “God was apparently fun to hang with, because he and his posse get invited to a lot of parties, including a wedding, which is basically a week long wine and dance party…this would be the first of Jesus’ many parties.” (Radical Reformission, p.30).
But Mr. Driscoll is a pastor, and must abide by Scriptural qualifications to hold that office.
“For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre, but a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate…”
For the purpose of this discussion, let’s look at: “not given to wine”. This is not referring to drunkenness. This is an emphasis, a preoccupation with wine. Extolling its virtues, being known for drinking wine. In essence, a biblical bishop (overseer) must be one that is not known for being a regular drinker (of a known substance that can make you drunk). Yet Mr. Driscoll spends more than an entire chapter in his “Radical Reformission” extolling his renewed love for alcohol (with a picture of a giant mug being filled from the tap). He says that he “repented” of abstinence, and began drinking again. He says alcohol was removed from the church when it got “feminized”. He says if “wine” doesn’t mean wine, “what does it mean, a hubcap”? So, to belittle those who try and draw a distinction between “wine” and “grape juice”, he ridicules them as being “strenuous proponents of the inerrancy and truth of God’s word” (Radical Reformission, p.149). What?!? Aren’t all true Christians supposed to be strenuous proponents of the inerrancy and truth of God’s word? If he believes so, why is he badmouthing it? If he doesn’t, why is he in the pulpit?
He talks about wanting to return the church to the days of those which Luther lived, when “men of God” hung out in pubs drinking alcohol and talking theology. That since God invented it, and Jesus drank it, it’s therefore “a terrible thing for us to try and be holier than Jesus by not drinking”. This is a classic straw man argument. His whole argument is based on rejecting the error of some Christians who say we should abstain from drinking any alcohol whatsoever (who are an extremely small minority in Christendom). But based on showing how wrong that is, he swings the pendulum to promote Christians drinking and enjoying alcohol like it were some long lost practice Christians need to immediately get back into. And the only Scriptural argument he can come up with to validate his premise is to infer we are sinning by thinking we are somehow “holier that Jesus” for not drinking alcohol. Which is no Scriptural argument at all, but an absurd statement of pitifully faulted logic.
At any rate, an overseer for God’s people must not be “given” to wine. It must not have an emphasis or preoccupation. He shouldn’t be spending a chapter in his book promoting the drinking of alcohol as if it were some long lost Christian virtue that needs to be rediscovered and vigorously practiced. It sends a bad message to the flock. But the more dangerous error is that he makes it a doctrinal issue, saying it is “heresy” to prohibit drinking alcohol. That’s a very strong statement. And since we don’t want to be accused of heresy, well, we’d better not forbid alcohol, right? His is another strawman argument, taking the absurd extreme opposite of his premise as support to the contrary. And it also raises the question: what are ex-alcoholics supposed to do? It puts a stumbling block before them, the very thing the Bible condemns. If anything, Scripture issues strong warnings against the substance. And history as well as human nature have shown that mankind has never suffered for drinking too little alcohol.
Let’s be real. People don’t drink alcohol today because it’s the only thing to drink, nor because it’s the best tasting thing to drink, but because they like the buzz it produces. And to say that the fact Jesus drank “wine” proves He drank alcoholic wine, is as illogical as to say that because he sat with prostitutes then He approved of their behavior, etc. My point here is not at all the issue of whether or not we can or can’t drink alcohol per se. But to show that this is just one of many cases where Mr. Driscoll appeals strictly to human reasoning (and faulty at that) to do what he wants to do, regardless of whether Scripture forbids it, but tries to conform Scripture to support his premise. And if that doesn’t work, to appeal to his own rendition of history.
As just a side note to this, several Acts 29 church plants (of which Mr. Driscoll is president) have had their funding cut off by numerous Baptist churches because it was found that they were having alcohol party nights, showing R rated movies, and those who came dressed the “hottest” (that is, the most attractive/sensual) received honors. To quote one report from the Baptist Press:
“The result is that all Acts 29 church plants, not just those with barroom ministries, are being de-funded. And the decision was not tied to just one issue. Board Member Vic Borden of Kansas City broadened the debate beyond alcohol by stating he is even more offended by The Journey’s movie ministry that includes R-rated films. There is becoming more and more of an abuse of Christian liberty, and it is most prevalent in the churches that have been connected with the Acts 29 Network,” said Marr, who was part of a theological study committee that examined this issue from February through July.”
I wouldn’t want my hard earned money going to tithes and offerings to support such things, and I sincerely doubt Mr. Driscoll has made these abuses known to his supporters. Granted, what people do at Acts 29 may not directly be Mr. Driscoll’s fault. Yet without his teaching, there wouldn’t be this preoccupation with alcohol in this organization that he founded and resides as president. When pressed, the official reply from the Acts 29 Network was that they “do not condone drunkenness”. Neither do they condone sex outside of marriage either. They just provide every possible temptation for it, including the alcohol and skin flix, and if you fall to sin, that’s your problem, not theirs. Consistent with so many other areas, they deny by their actions what they affirm with their words.
Another side note: Why Acts 29? Wasn’t the Acts of the Apostles an inspired book? Doesn’t Acts 29 give the obvious implication that it is a continuation of God’s inspired word (to which no man dare add)? Think about it.
David W, praise God for your biblically supported exposure of this heretic who calls himself a ‘preacher’. It brings to mind Matthew 12:34, ‘ Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks’. It is obvious Driscoll is a sensual, fleshly man who defends his pet sins by attacking the truth. Jude 19 also nails Driscoll, ‘These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit’. I like John MacArthur’s commentary on this passage, ‘Apostate teachers advertise themselves as having the highest spiritual knowledge, but are actually attracted to the most debased levels of life. They are soulish, not spiritual. They fractured the church rather than united it’- J. MacArthur–sound familiar?
If what a man preaches does not call his ‘flock’ to come out, or be separate from the world and what it loves, then that man doesn’t have Christ. We are not to hold on to any pet sins, not one. Yet, Driscoll goes against this…no wonder he’s so popular, he tickles the ear, but he never pricks the conscience.
I appreciate the thoughtful comments regarding alchohal consumption that have been presented on this site. There is no debate the bible is crystal clear about drunkeness being a sin. That said, I’m wondering how people interpret this verse:
Psalm 104:14-15 (English Standard Version)
14You cause(A) the grass to grow for the livestock
and(B) plants for man to cultivate,
that he may bring forth(C) food from the earth
15and(D) wine to gladden the heart of man,
(E) oil to make his face shine
and bread to(F) strengthen man’s heart.
I must correct my last comment when I said “Mr. Driscoll is a pastor…” Biblically speaking, he isn’t a true Christian pastor. He has usurped that office. He has failed to qualify as a pastor or elder on a number of (biblical) counts.
Unworthy1:
Thank you for your excellent teaching on alcohol a few comments up on this thread. As an unsaved man long ago, I was an alcoholic (which Jesus delivered me from). I know how deceptively dangerous it is, and would implore every Christian to stay way from it. So I find good wisdom in your counsel.
Your statement: “If what a man preaches does not call his ‘flock’ to come out, or be separate from the world and what it loves, then that man doesn’t have Christ.” That is truth. No matter what “orthodoxy” they proclaim, if their “orthopraxy” runs contrary to God’s revealed word, then by virtue of their rotten fruit, they display they do not have Christ.
The most basic of teaching about Christ’s body, the church, is that it is by definition ekklesia (“the called out ones”). Mr. Driscoll defies this most basic of concepts. He says “ekklesia” means “the assembly”. He conveniently leaves out the part about being separate from the world, since that directly conflicts with his re-imaged view of the church, which isn’t so separate.
Blessings to you, unworthy1 for your faithfulness to uphold the faith once delivered unto the saints.
Alan, since we know God’s word does not contradict, nor can He lie, we must dig deeper into this much debated controversy. John MacArthur has done just that; I refer you to my prior post from Feb. 14 at 7:57 p.m. [the fifth one down]
————————————————————-
here is a general question…alcohol is a drug, it is addicting and mind altering. Who can safely say what the limit is for each individual? Marijuana is a drug as well, would it be okay to take one hit off a joint, as long as I do not smoke the entire joint? What about cocaine? Can I snort one line and walk away, and be okay? Or can I smoke crack, or crystal meth, or any mind altering drug, as long as I do not over indulge?
I think if we understand the affects of drugs, the mind altering, addicting aspects of its usage, then we must ask ourselves, ‘is this pleasing to the Lord?’ We are commanded to strive for holiness, is putting anything that alters the mind, even in small amounts, meeting this biblical mandate? It would seem some want to see how close to the edge they can get; this is very dangerous. When we indulge in mind altering substances, are we not playing with deadly fire?