Do You Wine About Grape Juice?
"As you know, when we come to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, we have wine available in the outer rings of the trays, and grape juice is in the center. We do this because some Christians have developed scruples about drinking wine, and the New Testament is very plain about how such things are to be handled.(via Blog and Mablog)
But the grape juice is available for those with religious scruples. It is not for those with personal preferences. The Lord’s table is not a buffet, where you get to select what you personally would like to have.
So if you prefer the grape juice for reasons of taste, or age, then allow me to exhort you to take the wine. This may take some preparation for you, it may take some weeks for you to instruct your little ones, and so no one should respond to this invitation in a panic.
But we should know what direction we are going. The Lord set the first table with wine. We are not here to worship ourselves, or indulge our own notions. For those with scruples, the Word commands us to receive you and your scruples together with all honor. And this is what we do. But if, on the basis of preference or taste alone, you want to come to His table with your own menu items, then this is a problem. It is as though you were invited to a great banquet, and you showed up with your own brown bag lunch. Consider these things prayerfully."
posted on 12/06/2005 | permalink | more bloggy goodness
| 
16 Comments:
I've just posted a response to Wilson here.
Wow, Patrick. Nearly as scathing as Mr. Wilson himself. Hate to see you two in a bar at 2 am.
From what I read, I don't think you would find Patrick in a bar at 2 a.m. :-)
Actually, I had a drink at home last night (Jack and Coke); but it is not unusual to find me at a bar at 2am. It's happened as recently as last month. I'm not sure what I said that would make Scott think that. I'm no teetotaler. Whereever you find four Presbyterians, you'll find a fifth.
I forgot to ask you, Shaun, how you would respond to my exegesis of the Lord's Supper narratives (which never use the word for wine/oinos)?
Patrick,
I agree with Hendriksen, who essentially says that while grape juice may fall under the category of fruit of the vine, Jesus could not have meant anything other than wine by that phrase in that context.
Why Jesus chooses to use that phrase--fruit of the vine, and not wine--those three times (and only those three times in all of the New Testament) remains a puzzle to me. Clearly, it was not because he really wanted us to use grape juice instead. That would be anachronistic.
It has to be an allusion to the fruitfulness of his covenant kingdom ("until I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom" is the next phrase), but what exactly does that mean...is that kingdom age or new creation in heaven...well...jury is still out on that one.
My apologies. I made the wrong assumption that those who are for grape juice (or, conversely, argue against wine) usually have a conviction against drinking in general, even if they are Presbyterian. Also, I was keeping in Shaun's lighthearted vein.
Of course, I am reminded of a quote from an Bapist, who I will not metion by name: "Good Bapists don't drink, but if we do, we don't tell anyone about it."
The argument over grape juice/wine is a relatively recent debate. From Welch's website:
The modern-day fruit juice industry actually got its start in 1869 in the Vineland, N.J., home of Dr. Thomas Bramwell Welch, where he and his son Charles processed the first bottles of "unfermented wine" for use with the communion service at their church.
So, before 1869, communion was alway done with wine. Why did we change? Was it because of some new exegetical reason, or because of technology? While "fruit of the vine" can be grape juice, is that what he was dring at the Passover? Is there proof that Jesus would accept unfermented grape juice over wine for the communion? I think the onus is on the grape juice drinkers to defend their position, rather than attacking those who would have wine with communion.
That being said, I would not want this issue to divide a congregation or a denomination, and ad hominem attacks by either side do nothing to enlighten the debate. Instead, I would like people to examine their position and see if it is Biblical or cultural, and then to act accordingly.
Yours in Christ,
Scott
I've got a better joke, Scott: How do you keep a Baptist from drinking your beer while you're fishing together? Bring another Baptist.
I appreciate your comments, but I have to disagree with your contention: "I think the onus is on the grape juice drinkers to defend their position, rather than attacking those who would have wine with communion."
I think the onus is on those who want to draw lines beyond those offered in Scripture. If drinking grape juice violates your conscience - fine. But you are not making an exegetical argument. You're making a cultural and historical one. There is nothing in the biblical text that says how to do it, or even if wine was actually used! The point I was making in my blog post was that we are not able to recreate every minute condition of what they practiced at the Last Supper, nor does Scripture itself confine us to that. If Jesus intented to say that we should only use wine, there was a perfectly good Greek word available for him to say such. But He didn't, and we shouldn't be putting words into our Lord's mouth to accomodate our own theological fetishes. There is absolutely no biblical basis for what Wilson is arguing for. To say that the onus is on me is to beg the question.
That's the problem with the regulative principle -- it all rests with personal interpretations of what Scripture commands, and you can quickly get impaled by it when it gets turned around on you. Wilson eats from the same "buffet" to rail against other people eating from the philosophic buffet. As I said, what about countries where they don't make wine? Can they substitute vodka in Scandinavia and Russia? The principle you're pushing wouldn't allow for that. What are they supposed to use? The argument is so culturally conditioned that it is absurd on its face, let alone extra-biblical. And that Wilsonistas are so blind to its absurdity puts the finger on the cultish tendencies that deeply trouble me. And for Wilson to so blatantly bind the consciences of his fellow members is patently pagan.
Shaun, I don't think that I directly rejoindered to your response.
To claim that the biblical text excludes the use of grape juice, when in fact it didn't exist at the time in the Near East, is also an anachronistic argument. I would heartily agree with Hendriksen that Jesus was probably referring to wine; but the text itself nowhere limits future practice to wine. If you said that it was limited to "fruit of the vine", I would probably agree with you, but that would also include grape juice based on the usage of genema, yes? You are making a theological argument, not an exegetical one. Your position is a matter of personal preference, not of biblical commandment.
Cheers!
No, you misunderstand me (or I have not clearly elucidated).
I agree with you that the text says nothing either way. In Jesus context, wine and "fruit of the vine" both meant fermented grape juice since non-alcoholic, pasteurized grape juice did not exist, per se. In other words, the onus is on *neither* contemporary party, because the text does not speak to the contemporary issue of wine vs. grape juice.
Or to use a complimentary statement to your own, "the text itself nowhere limits the future practice to" grape juice.
Therefore, and this is my point in response to your question of me, Jesus' word choice had to do with something else entirely. What? I don't know.
Yet.
Patrick,
OK. Let's say that I agree with your line of reasoning. Can any item be used for communion?
-Scott
Shaun: I think we may be violently agreeing. I concur that what Jesus says and what was practiced on that Passover Eve doesn't address the contemporary grape juice vs. wine. We're in complete agreement on that as far as I see. But when Wilson says that the only reason someone could drink grape juice is on the basis of scruples, he is binding the conscience where Scripture does not. Since the biblical text does not make the grape juice/wine controversy an issue, on what authority does Wilson make it an issue? I think we agree that it isn't on biblical grounds.
Scott: My line of reasoning is not to advocate anything other than to say that the biblical text provides much greater latitude than Wilson is willing to offer. He is trying to bind the conscience where the Bible is silent. I think you've caught on to the heart of my argument: if we were to follow Wilson's theological reasoning to its logical conclusion, Christ Church itself could never offer communion. For them to stop the biblical pattern at wine would be arbitrary. They would have to get rid of bleached white flour bread, etc. And Wilson's position is Americentric. It completely ignores the fact that believers for centuries in regions in which grapes are not indigenous have been using elements other than wine (saki in Japan; yak's milk in central asia; fruit brandy in Southeastern Europe, etc.)
I hope that clarifies where I'm coming from.
Patrick,
I would slightly disagree that the wine issue is Americentric. I believe that a majority of the world can, and does, grow grapes and make wine, including Europe, the Middle East, Australia, parts of Africa, and, of course N. and S. America, so framing your argument in that light does it a disservice.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that any drink can be used for wine, and any food for bread, correct? And it only depends on the cultural norms of the group involved.
Also, what do I say to my brother if I should want wine restored to the communion table, but keeping the option open for grape juice? And how will this affect the congregation if there exist an option at communion?
-Scott
Scott,
I'm not sure where you see that I've said that anyone can use anything for communion. I don't think I've said anything of the kind. What I have said is that the church around the world, and in every age, have used elements other than wine for the Lord's Supper. This is not a disputed fact. For my own part, I don't think that Coke and Doritos should be used for communion, but I've been in churches literally in every corner of the world on five continents, and I have no problem taking whatever is offered to me and receiving it in faith. It would seem you would have a problem with that approach if they weren't serving wine.
The grape juice/wine issue really is Americentric, because until very recently we were one of the few countries where grape juice is even on the market. And I have to correct you about your assertion that grapes grow almost everywhere. That's not even close to being true. Wine as we know it is primarily a Mediterranean regional product. Grapes are not indigenous to most areas of the world. Take Australia, South Africa and Chile, for example. They are three of the top wine exporters in the world today, but there wasn't a single grape vine in either country one hundred years ago. The vines used there today for wine production were transplanted from European vineyards. The same is true for the Napa Valley. Grape production around the world today is the result of 19th Century European colonialism (the Spanish first brought grapes to California). And grapes haven't been grown in Israel and the rest of the Middle East for over a millenia. And for Wilson to try to force his view on wine on Christians as a categorical imperative is chauvanistic (in the strict sense of the world) and not warranted by Scripture and historic church practice; and I don't even think can be sustained theologically.
I see the trap you are trying to set to accuse me of bald relativism, but I'm not game. I don't believe that anyone can pick and choose their practices, and that the received traditions of the church should be an authorative guide. But I would caution you against tying to make rites uniform in the church that have historically been diverse. There simply is no historic basis for the instruction that Wilson is trying to impose. The debate he's engaged in has taken place entirely in a microscopic portion of the Body of Christ.
Let me state again that I'm not speaking out of ignorance here. I can't even tell you how many different elements I've been served in churches all over the planet over the past 15 years. And there's nothing in Scripture to indicate that the Lord doesn't recognize those various elements of administration just because they don't conform to Doug Wilson's standard.
Patrick,
First, I am not trying to set a trap for you, although I could see how you might misinterpret my comments in that way. I am actually trying to better understand your position in a question and answer form, so that I am sure of your position. I am not trying to be combative, I am trying to find the bounds of your position.
Second, I agree that grapes are not idigenous to different parts of the globe, but my assertion was not that they were idigenous, but they can, and are grown, in many parts of the globe. Just as grape juice has been exported to other countries. I think that the importation of grapes to Napa was, in part, due to the need of having grape wine with the Roman Catholic communion.
Third, let me state my position on communion clearly, so that there is no further confusion: I would prefer that our churches offer wine from the grape with communion, but also allow grape juice as well. I state this since grape wine was the original drink of the passover, and that in our culture it is available, it should be offered. I also think that the bread should be unleavened, but that is a different, but somewhat related issue. I am not dogmatic about this, but this is my preference, and I don't see any Biblical injunction with this. My problem is with those who would completely exclude wine with communion, since it has the "taint" of alchol in it.
So going back to my earlier post, I think it is the onus of the grape-juice only people to explain why we cannot have wine with communion, since it is clearly seen in use in the Bible. I should have been more clear as to avoid the confusion.
Peace in Christ,
Scott
Scott: Fair enough. My personal preference too is that both wine and grape juice be served, but it is not more than that - personal preference. If only wine or only grape juice were offered, I wouldn't even think about it. I would hope you would be of the same mind. However, what galls me about Wilson's comments is that he derides the motives of anyone taking grape juice on any other basis than scruples - ESPECIALLY WHEN THE CHURCH SERVES BOTH!!!! And on top of it he asserts that his position is the "biblical" model that must be followed. But in our little conversation here I've attempted to establish a few points:
1) There is absolutely no biblical/exegetical basis for the belief that the pattern of the Lord's Supper demands that we use only wine for communion. I think Shaun and I agreed that Scripture is entirely silent on the matter.
2) Wilson can't defend his position theologically either, because they arbitrarily decide which conditions of the Last Supper they want to recreate. And unless they are using ancient Judean wine, or if they are using bread from bleached flour, they aren't being consistent. (Maybe this is the Federal Vision form of transubstantiation)
3) Wilson's position can't even be imposed as a categorical imperative for the universal church for the very reasons I've cited (varying elements used throughout time and location). So if his proscription can't be ubiquitous, on what authoratative basis can it be made at all? Nothing more than bald tyranny.
4) I assume you conceded my point when you resort to saying that wine is available everywhere, so it should be used/offered everywhere. To say that wine availability today should demand its ubiquity is really an anachronistic argument. The fact is that until recently in human history, it wasn't ubiquitous.
Two corrections to your last post: 1) Wine grapes were brought to California to satisfy the demands for wine by wealthy Spanish landowners and merchants, not Jesuit priests. And what did the priests use for hundreds of years before then?
2) There is no mention whatsoever about what they drank at the Passover (Ex. 12). Once again, no mention of wine. Wilson would be better off claiming that only unleavened bread should be used, but it has been my experience that Federal Vision-types use leavened bread to represent "the leaven of the Kingdom" (as one FV pastor desribed it to me).
I suspect we have let this discussion run its course. In closing, let me say that I don't see the slightest bit of difference between Wilson's position and those you identify who say no trace of alcohol should be present in communion elements. They both use the same arguments to reach mutually exclusive conclusions. Wilson is doing nothing less than binding the consciences of his fellow members on nothing more than his personal preferences - and this characteristic infects most of his work. IMHO, he should step down from the ministry and stop teaching until his humility catches up to his ego.
Thanks for the lively discussion. Regards.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
Back to Main Page