Today, I’m going to blow your mind. Actually, I’m going to take on one of the most deeply rooted, commonly accepted social standards in the Christian faith. My goal is to blow your mind. I will probably succeed in sincerely offending you.
I am not trying to offend. I don’t want to. But it’s likely unavoidable when one challenges such an accepted, widespread practice. What is this dreaded social pit into which a vast portion of the Christian church has fallen, you ask? Oh, well that’s simple.
Welch’s grape juice.
Today, I am going to prove churches (yes, yours) should serve wine on Sunday mornings. Yep, during the wee hours many counties around the nation do not allow unbelieving Americans to buy alcohol, churches should be serving it as a viable Sunday morning worship experience. Or at the very least I will prove if a person believes churches should never serve wine, one must also live by the letter of the social law in every way one might offend. Or deeply risk being hypocritical.
I’m aware that if I don’t clear up some misconceptions first, no one will ever take me seriously. So, when one brings up alcohol and Christianity, what verse leaps to mind? Sure, you can dredge up others if you have to, but there’s a favorite teetotallers of the world happily unite around (with Shirley Temples).
“If food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again.” So…because alcoholics exist, and some of them may be watching, we should never drink, right? And certainly never serve it in church.
Unfortunately, there are major problems with this assault on a casual Sunday morning sup and sip:
1. It’s a bad analogy- In Paul’s day, eating meat sacrificed to idols led believers to worship idols, pay homage to demons, and seal the deal with sex with temple prostitutes. Now, I will not compare sins — alcoholism is a destructive vice — but purely from a logical perspective, the corrosion of brothers’ faith was not an aimless shot-in-the-dark fear. It was:
- A) an imminent threat (it was actually happening regularly), and
- B) a direct one, not an indirect apprehension that someone may see something that may have a negative effect that may be unnoticed.
Translation: not eating meat was a direct response to proof that damaging consequences were occurring by Christians eating it, not an indirect rationalization of fear of the unknown.
2. Alcoholism was a problem in Paul’s day, but he chose to specifically address eating meat- We know Jesus’ society struggled with alcoholism because Jesus was accused of being a glutton and a drunkard. That wasn’t like calling someone a wuss in a Fat Tuesday paczki eating contest. It proves being a drunk was a well-understood vice and people actually fell into it. However, in letters to the church, Paul advised a balanced approach of drinking a little wine and never advocated anything but wine for Communion, even when people were abusing it by actually getting drunk in church.
3. The Jesus factor- There’s another major flaw with using the fear-of-encouraging-drunkenness argument to advocate supplying massive quantities of sweet, tart, entirely harmless, but still slightly addictive fruit concentrate to the masses in church.
Jesus wouldn’t do it.
Jesus supplied what historians understand to be 120-180 gallons of wine to a wedding reception full of people, many of whom were already drunk. I know this is hard to believe, but that’s exactly what Scripture is implying when it says the Master of Ceremonies came to the bride and groom astonished because “everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink, but you have saved the best till now.”
Um, Jesus — did you know what you were doing there? Of course, you did. Your first name is Jesus.
Now, I’m not saying Jesus encouraged drunkenness (nor do I) when the Bible actually discourages it, but this is pretty big news to the modern church. Although alcohol abuse is awful, there are (gasp* -don’t say it) some things that are just more important. That little wedding in Cana represents the union of Christ to his Bride. And that wine — the joy and fullness of life found in Him.
And that’s the point. There are some things so important Paul (who’d happily abstain from meat), or Jesus (who started this whole Communion thingy), wouldn’t think of giving up.
But, why wine?
Thank you for finally asking.
Simple. Wine is the most important symbol in human history. What?
I didn’t say it’s the most popular — it’s the most important. The cross is the open-the-sky-Hallelujah-chorus revered Christian symbol — of Christ’s sacrifice and death. It’s the implement of destruction on which the hopes of the world hung. But wine is the blood. It is the cleansing that makes you whole. It is the hope of the world.
That’s why pure spotless lambs in the Old Testament were skewered and splattered all over the altar. It wasn’t about the altar (the cross), but a Savior whose blood would be spilled for the redemption of the world. And the life in that blood.
But here comes the zinger. Symbols, they aren’t just pretty things we pick up and use to point at a target at whim. We can’t decide a thumbtack is our new symbol for grace that pins our sins away. Or make goat’s milk Communion for some weird Good Shepherd fetish. Every connection of God’s symbols has meaning.
Wine has two:
- The crushed grape- The grape was crushed to produce the fruit of the vine as Christ was crushed for our iniquities. We’ll give grape juice a pass on this one. Minus the iffy-ness of filtered water and grape juice concentrate, this is a big check mark.
- The alcohol represents the power of the blood- Don’t underestimate the meaning here. No irresistible Welch’s sweet tart tang can replace the alcohol as a symbol for the potency of the blood. You wouldn’t want to take that out of the blood, would you? Why would you take it out of its symbol? Remember, you didn’t get to choose the symbol. God did. But for comparison, alternately, if a friend has an aversion to death that has previously prompted suicidal thoughts, you wouldn’t change the cross to a teeter-totter in your gospel presentation, would you? They’re both made of wood. No, you’d love and disciple your friend without compromising truth.
This is one of the great swing-and-a-misses at the tee for the church of our generation.
But the real issue that gets to me at the heart of this is — why won’t we follow Jesus?
We talk a great game about “What Would Jesus Do?” and we follow all the love and kindness, but when he brings up a controversial topic we disperse faster than a crowd who’s been asked to drink blood.
C’mon. Let’s all be honest about this. It’s not because the Bible says so. It doesn’t. It actually strongly shows the reverse by Jesus and every disciple we revere.
The reason we hate wine so much is because drinking has become the most vilified religious social taboo. That’s it. With a distant second of nasty chest tats. But it’s not *ahem* a biblical taboo.
So, here’s the thing. You have to choose — man’s rules or Christ’s. It’s not too different from the Pharisees’ choice over the traditions of men. Are you going to follow the accepted church social norm or Christ? Which did He choose?
And here’s where we have to face the seventh inning stretch and we can’t just kick the dirt, scowl, and take our tee ball home after striking out. If you base your decision to remove wine from church on an extra-biblical, indirect fear that you might cause anyone to sin — however rational it may be — you have to do it in every area of your life to that same extreme or you are a hypocrite. Yep, I said it. Hypocrite.
Whole moral law or nothing. There’s no other option. If you’re willing to believe the cup of the new covenant in Christ as he advocated and served it is so dangerous it should be removed, then you sure as heck better not wear jeans or slim-fit pants if you’re a woman. Or allow your wife to be seen in public in anything but a hajib (Middle Eastern women’s garb) if you’re a man. Or develop friendships with women you don’t intend to marry. You better not watch R-rated movies, go to theaters where R-rated movies are shown, play Grand Theft Auto, bump Tupac or Lil’ Wayne in your Sedona, visit parties, nightclubs, or bars. Or have junior’s birthday bash at Chuck E. Cheese’s — where alcohol is served up with the ball pit.
Or do anything that may cause anyone to be offended, regardless of your convictions.
Because the mere presence of your Express blue jeans is at least as likely to cause lust as communion wine causes alcoholism, bolstered by the sheer volume of people who are actually tempted by it. Not to mention the violence, prostitution, lasciviousness, rape, violence against women, and reckless parent altercations at kids’ one-year-old parties perpetuated by the activities above, which rank right up there with the best of ’em. Are you willing to maintain the same level of distance from anything that may indirectly lead someone to sin as you claim the cup of Christ would?
Are you willing to wear long skirts?
If you live by a social law that eliminates one behavior on the outside chance it may indirectly cause sin, without any direct relationship or proof, you must follow that law in every area of your life without exception. Or you’re a hypocrite.
Man’s reason and rules look so good to us. They make a neat, tidy bed we can sleep in, while visions of sugarplums and safe religion dance in our heads. But Christ implied they produce illegitimate children. And wisdom is proved right by following Him.
Shouldn’t our witness look like Him, anyway?
Hey, I’m all in favor of providing a grape juice alternate for recovering alcoholics to drink at Communion. I think that’s a great option. We should think of others.
But eliminate what Christ drank, blessed, and called his blood, and then told us to drink as often as we remember it?
Not on your spiritually symbolic life.
John,
Thanks for this article. I commend you for tackling such a controversial topic. I have never thought about the potency of alcohol in symbolizing the power of the blood. Thank you for that. Although I have one concern for this argument. Does it have to be one or the other? I am a recovering alcoholic. Could I take one sip of wine and not fly off the handle? Yes…. but, in the past that has led me to believing I could have one glass and one glass has led me to believe I could safely have a few glasses. My flesh and sin bent leave no room for chance in this area. I would not be offended if I went to a church that served wine w/ a grape juice alternative for me. I would not be ashamed to take the alternative because being able to make that choice symbolizes the freedom Christ has set me free for. Many moons ago I would not have been able to make that choice. Coming from a church with a large number of those recovering we serve grape juice only. Those struggling with alcohol and drunkenness aren’t always truthful with their struggle and a sip of wine could be detrimental to them. Do you think Jesus understands that?
I am not a believer that all Christians should be tea toters, but I am, not out of a sense of rules or morality but out of freedoms sake which I was set free and I don’t want to be yoked again to yoke of slavery. I wouldn’t want that for anyone else either. If we served wine with a juice alternative, we run the risk of those in early recovery from alcohol dependency to prolong their struggle. Make any sense? What would be suggested to a fellowship with a high number of those in recovery?
Again, great post and thank you! Love you guys!
Thoughtful comment, George! I completely agree with your personal choice, and at times I have made similar personal choices, in various contexts. For the former alcoholic (or recovering), that is probably the best choice. And I do see the slippery slope of temptation. I also think the goal is to disciple maturity which at times means avoiding and at other times standing up against it.
My thought would be, first, you are right. It isn’t an either/or. There are many other options. And I never envisioned a couple grape cups on the side where anyone could feel like the second choice. I was a member for 25 years of a church that had an even split of wine and grape juice cups (granted the common cup was wine, but the individual cups were widely used as well) and left it up to the member. I think that’s an advisable way to go.
But in your congregation’s case, it may be different. The thing about walking in the Spirit is it’s never rules or legalism based, but wisdom based. In a ministry predominantly for recovery, I might very well consider serving only grape juice. I can’t say I would. But I might end at that conclusion. Another great choice might be mostly grape with a few wine cups for those who prefer for reasons above. I understand in a period of weakness and transition keeping any possibility of alcohol completely away from people in recovery is probably the best option. But if that is the end goal, I think there’s a problem. The end is maturity and strength, so I’m not sure the theory of permanent avoidance (even of something like communion) is best.
Still, like I said. I might come to a similar conclusion in your specific church. But that is a very unique church, and I would not feel that way about most. In other cases, I think options would be best. I do not go as far as Catholics do, which is to believe the Eucharist (as they call Communion) cannot physically draw anyone into sin (thereby protecting alcoholics), but I think in cases other than a ministry specifically geared toward recovery, it is often a straw man argument, with no actual examples of people being led back into sin by the cup of Christ. And I see it as power in drawing us near to Christ, a spiritual connection with God.
Really, what I am addressing is not grape juice vs wine at all. It is a cultural shift away from what Jesus did on a macro scale for what I believe are misguided reasons (excepting ministries devoted to transitional recovery, although I’m not saying it couldn’t be done well there). Baby with the bath water is exactly the cliche. And I’m not against grape juice. I drink it more often than wine in church and never grumble. I’d, as Jon says below, use Coke if I had to.
But I am against cultural shifts away from what Jesus did and his example, especially when there’s enough precedent to think he wasn’t just confined to the limitations of a time period. That always concerns me when I see it in the church.
Still, I am certainly not saying Jesus wouldn’t have compassion, concern, and a thoughtful perspective for your congregation.
Thanks for weighing in on a difficult subject! Always love your contributions!
John Peter,
I see the focal point of your argument is the use of wine for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, with a secondary poke at the social consumption of alcohol as well. I was surprised by your statement
“drinking has become the most vilified religious social taboo.”
I guess in certain circles that may be true, and if it is, what a sad statement that is. The church has much bigger problems facing it than that. As a pastor I have taken the position that I will drink a glass of wine or a beer every once in awhile. I gather that means some of my evangelical brothers and sisters think that I’m compromising my witness when I do that. The problem is, in my congregation, even though we love the Bible too, if I don’t drink, some will think I’m making a statement that drinking alcohol is a sin. I realize that I can’t be overly concerned about pleasing everyone or even not offending anyone. But after reading your piece, I confess that have reluctantly resolved to get rid of my skinny jeans. Don’t want to be a stumbling block to the women.
Ok back to reality… About Communion wine. Of course the church will find itself gathered in places around the world where crushed and fermented grapes are not available. If wine (or grape juice) was not available, I would pray and serve Coca Cola or some other drink if that’s what I had. With this in mind, I don’t know if your emphasis on using wine in the sacrament is as critical as you are making it out to be. Would you say that red wine is superior as well–pinot grigio just won’t cut it–because it doesn’t look like blood?
And while I haven’t researched the ancient context as much as I should, I believe that part of the reason for choosing fermented grape juice for Communion was due to the fact that unfermented grape juice was relatively rare in the 1st Century due to lack of preservatives and cold storage. If my contention is true, then I believe that your argument that Jesus preferred the fermented variety has less merit.
Ok one more practical matter. I think using actual fermented grape juice works better when it is in a common cup or chalice, and here’s why. In most free churches, small cups of liquid are passed down the aisle. If you are alcohol averse for whatever reason, you will need to bypass taking a cup all together. When the wine is in a common cup, some choose to bypass the cup, but others will dip their bread in the cup, thereby significantly limiting their alcohol intake, while still receiving the Blood. As you imply, the Blood is so powerful, that one precious drop is all you need. But now we may be getting into sacramental theology as well. Just what is the Lord doing in that fermented or unfermented grape juice? Is it just a symbol, or is it more than that?
Thanks once again for starting the discussion. Keep it going.
Jon, there are a lot of discussions in the points you bring up, and I’ll do my best not to be too long in responding. First of all, thanks for your thoughtful response! You make some great points!
I do want to point out that this post was never intended to be a wine vs grape juice debate. It’s actually meant to be a proof why wine should not be eliminated. I know they sound similar, but I think they are fundamentally different points.
I actually stayed away from the Jesus chose wine over juice argument for the reason you stated. To my knowledge, you’re right. Grape juice wasn’t possible to preserve. But here’s why that doesn’t matter to what I am saying. The only way one can discredit the fact that Jesus chose wine as his symbol (over anything — water, actual blood, and couldn’t God have arranged advances differently to make juice I suppose?) is if one is making the argument that Jesus would’ve chosen juice over wine if he had the opportunity. And I think that is a very weak argument. The fact is, he did call wine his blood.
I find your wine color illustration humorous, but I don’t think it should be used to erase what I see as important symbolism of potency that juice does not hold. I personally believe that is one reason God designed things that way from the beginning, to have wine represent his blood. Also, though I didn’t go into this for brevity’s sake, while multiple OT references of alcohol are warning of the dangers of its overuse, the rest all are using it as a symbol for abundant life and joy. That is exactly why Christ chose wine as a symbol for himself. And those examples foreshadow him. I allude to that above, but probably should’ve gone into it in more detail.
This is a reality that escapes much of Christendom today, and I think why so many aren’t resting in a sweet joy-filled relationship with Jesus. The overflowing, bubbling up joy and life is what it represents and something grape juice can’t replicate. God wants us to experience that. For that reason and others, I don’t think Jesus would’ve chosen juice over wine.
But it isn’t about legalism, instead wisdom and freedom in the Spirit, so I would absolutely use Coca-Cola, and have done things like that in the past. And I don’t have a problem with juice when it’s served me, which is whenever I’m not at your church, honestly. I bless it myself (because I assume the church doesn’t believe it’s any more than juice and remembering) and I enjoy the moment with God’s people. It’s always special for me. What I do have a problem with is exactly what shocked you about this post. And Jon, that is every circle I run in, pretty much, that isn’t yours (or Richard’s now at Christ Church). Not up in Michigan, but sadly, down here. I can’t tell you how many have told me it hurts one’s witness to drink, especially the pastors feel that way. Some even used “not being given to wine (which is best translated “addicted”, so it was interpreted wrongly in the instance to which I’m referring) as proof pastors should NEVER drink. It is a deeply vilified cultural taboo of sin or reckless Christianity in those circles.
In Michigan, all of the pastors drank, though. One of my most respected held a beer and Bible study for the young men over 21, which was the manliest, most inspiring Bible study I was ever a part of!
I’ve heard the statement passed around that alcohol has never improved someone’s witness, but interestingly, if done moderately as you and I are inclined, I’ve found it opens more doors to the gospel when I’m in public, and to people who would never receive 1,000 rules gospel, but might, a Savior at the cross. And it leads others, as you’ve mentioned, to freedom and a balanced, biblical view of drinking (which of course includes moderation and wisdom, but also life).
Anyway, the whole reason I wrote this was to combat the effect that movement has had on changing our experience with Christ in Communion — not to prove wine is better than grape juice, or say wine is essential and grape juice can never be used. It’s to stave off a vastly widespread movement (that has already occurred) to abandon Communion wine as Christ served it for our cultural reasons. It’s about eliminating what Jesus did because it’s no longer good enough. Any thinking like that in the church today scares me — frankly — deeply (I’ll share other areas).
I’m standing against the tide, throwing pebbles at it.
When it seems the modern church thinks we can reason away what Jesus did (and I think there is precedent to believe he was not just limited to his culture and time period, but actually lived as he thought best), because we think we have a better option, I’m concerned. I think we should follow him and trust his example (but not in legalism). And if we’re in an airport just the three of us, I’ll celebrate that with you and him over a Coca-Cola Communion.
JP, what are your thoughts about going up to kneel at the alter rail verses having a tray of mini cups passed down the isles? Also, how often would the ideal church offer communion in your opinion?
Interesting question about how to serve Communion, Susan. I think we can get too tied up in particulars. At this point, I don’t think it really matters. Some people have issues with a common cup. But I will say I like the idea of a cup everyone drinks from, or a couple. The symbolism of unity in drinking from the same cup is very special, and it’s a lot healthier with a wipe cloth and rotation technique than people think (germs die quickly). But I don’t think there’s anything wrong with individual cups.
I also like the idea of coming forward rather than being served in one’s seat. It gives the effect of coming to the altar, engages the congregation — it just seems more involved than waiting for a cup, even if one chooses an individual cup at the front. I also like the position of kneeling in submission to Christ, although it wasn’t one from my background.
But your last question is the essential one. It’s probably more important than anything I’ve said in this blog post. It should be every week. I don’t know how it can not be every week, if we really honor, love, and desire that fellowship with Christ in his blood. If you spent some time with your husband every Friday, wouldn’t it be nicer if you went on a date each time?
I guess I hunger for the intimacy of communion with Jesus so much, I can’t understand a church that does it once a month, or worse, never on Sundays and only on another day of the week. I don’t think it’s giving the Body and Blood the attention it deserves — as often as you remember it. It would be cool to have Communion at home every night with my family. Or once a week.
I probably shouldn’t add that Martin Luther thought a person cannot even be a Christian without having Communion at least three times a year, he loved it so much. Great questions!
So, in a nutshell, this is basically what you’re saying:
You are NOT saying that it is wrong for churches to serve juice for communion. You are saying that it is wrong when a church purposely OPPOSES the use of wine as the blood of Christ in communion when wine happened to be the very thing Jesus himself used. If Jesus could use it (in a culture where there were people very much abusing alcohol), then the churches shouldn’t feel inhibited to use it here in ‘merica.
Personal thoughts:
I grew up my entire life in a church that used grape juice and nothing else. All of the churches in our circle did the same. I thought only Catholics used real wine. Until I got out of this country. Almost every church I have been to in foreign countries use wine for communion. Even in the so – called “circle” I was raised in. The only churches that I recall didn’t, were those run/led by AMERICANS! It was interesting that something that was so common in other countries had to be changed to fit the “American church standard”. I grew up very much respecting and honoring holy communion. Even with grape juice. It’s quite tasty. ;) I have, however, learned that it’s a lot more than just a symbol and “time to examine our hearts” as I was taught. Those things are very important. It is something very spiritual and real about drinking Christ’s blood and eating his flesh that was broken for us. I have learned more on this topic, but it hasn’t taken away anything I learned previously. I believe it has added to my faith. Personally, it doesn’t matter to me if it’s grape juice or wine. I just don’t think the churches should be opposed to something that Jesus himself used/did. And that applies to MANY areas of Christianity.
My post in 100 words or less. Angela, you have a brilliant way of cutting right to the chase. Incisive! I love you so much. Those are awesome words and insights, and I love your perspective! :)
JP,
Thanks so much for your in depth reply to my questions. I wholeheartedly agree!
I was brought up in the Lutheran tradition. In my current church, the communicant has the choice of the common cup or an individual cup. We also have the option of picking up a prefilled cup of grape juice as we approach the altar. That pretty much takes care of wine vs. grape juice. It also is an alternative for those with alcoholic problems and for those who just don’t like the taste of wine. Another alternative, taking the common cup and just touching it to your lips without taking any wine is a considered a way of communing. BTW – for a long time, my church used white wine so it wouldn’t stain the carpet of the linens. We are now using a red wine. And, I grew up in a congregation that had only monthly communion. I really appreciate the weekly opportunity to have a “foretaste of the feast to come”.