I'll call her Julie. Julie comes from a Christian family who considers drinking a sin.

I'll call him Robert. Robert comes from a non-Christian family who thinks drinking is the next greatest thing since conception. Robert and Julie are in love. So they decide to get married. Neither think drinking is a sin, and both believe that getting drunk is against Scripture's teaching (Eph 5:18). 

Julie's dad promises five grand as a gift to their wedding if Julie won't serve alcohol. Robert's family is appalled that they would consider not serving alcohol. Robert and Julie realize that no matter which way they turn, someone will get offended.

Is this a case where the Christians become priority? "So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of faith" (Gal 6:10). Aren't we to do whatever it takes to keep the weaker brother from stumbling?

But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble (1 Cor 8:9-13). 

Paul is careful to not do anything that would tempt his Christian brother to fall back into his old way of life. So I asked Julie, "Apart from your Dad's ridiculous attempt to pay off your conviction that drinking is not inherently sinful, would any of your family members be tempted to sin against their convictions or get drunk if you had alcohol at the wedding?" 

"No," replied Julie. 

"Then causing a weaker brother to stumble does not apply in this case. And for that reason you have no choice but to offer alcohol."

Okay, some of you are ready to close your browser. But let me explain my biblical insanity. In Acts 16:3, Paul circumcised Timothy "because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek." Because Timothy's father was Greek, the Jews knew he was uncircumcised. So why did Paul circumcise him? Because being uncircumcised would hinder the gospel. The Jews in those parts wouldn't even consider what Paul had to say since he'd be traveling around with an "unclean" protege. It would be like witnessing to the homeless in a tuxedo or trying to witness to gays while wearing a shirt that says, "Practicing homosexuals are going to hell." By having Timothy circumcised, Paul chose to be "all things to all men" (1 Cor 9:22).

But in Galatians 2:3, Paul does the very opposite! "But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised." How ironic. Both Timothy and Titus were disciples of Paul and received letters from him, yet one gets circumcised, the other remains uncircumcised.

What happened to Paul? In Galatians, Jews who claim to be followers of Jesus are telling the church that they must be circumcised if they want to be saved (Gal 1:6-9). Paul called them "false brethren" who threatened the gospel of Christ. To yield to their demands would make a statement that circumcision gives one merit for salvation. It would be to add to the gospel and diminish the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice (2 Cor 5:21).  

If Robert and Julie refuse to serve alcohol, their action will be interpreted by unbelievers like this: "Good people don't drink. You must not be good people because you drink. If you want to be Christian, you have to stop drinking." That's pure legalism and communicates a false gospel. I'm not ignoring the devastating effects of alcoholism and the millions of lives, marriages, and families it's shredded. But so can food, music, video games, movies, and sports rip a family to shreds. And for some, to stop drinking might be the only way for one to be willing to receive Christ, just as to give up riches was the only way for the rich young ruler to be ready to follow Jesus (Mat 19:21). 

But to refuse to serve alcohol at the demands of legalists is to compromise the gospel. Is making it a teetotaler wedding going to help the unbelievers become less addicted to alcohol? Or is it somehow going to bring them closer to trusting Jesus? Of course not. Behavior change never changes the heart. They'd probably leave the reception that much earlier and go find a bar. Not only this, but not serving alcohol could create a gap between Robert's family and Robert and Julie that could cause huge hindrance to the unbelievers being willing to even listen to the gospel. 

Be all things to all men. Even if it offends a legalist.