For some of you, the argument over wine versus grape juice in the Lord’s Supper is entirely foreign. You grew-up Roman Catholic or Lutheran or Greek Orthodox or Anglican or similarly “high church.” You can read this post as an observer on the outside, curiously looking in. But here in NASCAR country, we do our drinking at the track or pretty much anywhere and anytime, unless it’s Sunday morning at church and it’s time for Communion. So, this is a lively debate still. Here is a brief run-down of how I understand the issue.
History
For those who know little or nothing of this discussion, here is a quick history. The transition from wine to grape juice is a recent event in the two thousand year history of the church, and its provenance was almost entirely in America. Not every church or denomination transitioned to grape juice. Those that did were under the influence of two powerful sociological forces in the 19th century: (1) the plight of alcoholism and (2) the rise of revivalism. These are very different, but I think they sufficiently account for a lot.
The temperance movement swept our nation in the 19th century, in response to the serious rise in alcoholism, especially among the working class. The reasons for this are somewhat complex, but I think a broadly Marxian critique is probably right. The sociological behavior was driven by economic forces, namely the inhumanity of 19th century industrialism. Alcoholism was a consequence, in large part, of industrialism. I know that can be disputed, and I would not extend this critique further than it needs to go. For the record, this is probably the only time I have ever appealed to Marx to substantiate an argument, and I wouldn’t recommend doing so when talking to Southern Baptists!
Another factor worth considering is the increased availability of distilled spirits (hard liquor), thanks to the invention of the column still in the 19th century. Distillation goes back to the early middle ages, but it was not mass produced in the way we are accustomed today and for the past 100 or so years. As those of us who drink are well aware, it takes a lot of beer or wine to get truly drunk. But with liquor, it’s easy and relatively inexpensive, if you go for the bottom shelf booze. I don’t know how much of this contributed to alcoholism in the 19th and early 20th century, but it seems like a good guess.
The entrepreneur to capitalize on the plight of alcoholism was the devout Methodist, Thomas Bramwell Welch. But his motivations were not avaricious, as “to capitalize on” may suggest. He was genuinely concerned about alcoholism and for religious/ethical reasons — the same reasons that motivated his involvement in the Underground Railroad. He invented the pasteurization process that yields grape juice as we know it today, and he advocated for its use as a substitute for wine. He and his heirs were enormously successful in doing so.
Alongside the rise of alcoholism, the 19th century was also the century of revivalism in the churches. There was a “Great Revival” in the 18th century, but this revivalism acquired whole new dimensions with Charles Finney and other prominent revivalists in the following century. For many, it became a comprehensive template for how the church should conduct itself. As a result, the sacraments diminished and “enthusiasm” increased. The sacraments were sidelined, although not entirely abandoned, of course. It was in this context that substituting wine for grape juice was, quite simply, not a big deal. In those churches where a higher view of the sacraments was retained, this was unconscionable. The “low church” bodies were generally the most adaptable to grape juice, such as Baptists and Holiness groups, but many mainline leaders advocated the same, as a part of the social gospel awareness. As a result, many of the mainline Protestant denominations were caught in-between, such as the Methodists and the Presbyterians. The Methodists had a stronger revivalist streak, and thus many of them adopted grape juice rather easily. For Presbyterians, it was mixed, and it remains mixed to this day. Some use wine. Some use grape juice.
So, that is the history. More needs to be said, but let’s look at the common objections to wine in the Eucharist.
Objection #1: Alcoholism
The obvious objection, given the history above, is that of alcoholism. The objection is basically this: “Every church has members or guests who struggle with alcohol abuse. Serving wine is a temptation for them to ‘fall off the wagon,’ and so it is unloving and irresponsible for us to do so.” This objection has to be taken seriously, as I think everyone agrees. Because of this, I am willing for churches to adopt a compromise position, serving wine primarily but with grape juice as an option. But it also needs to be observed that Catholics, to give one notable example, do not seem to be debilitated by this concern. Neither do Lutherans or Orthodox or Anglicans. In those communions and cultures where wine in the Eucharist is “a given,” it is not a problem, and these also tend to be cultures that (as I see it) have a healthier view of wine and alcohol consumption in general. Alcoholism, as in the ancient world, is seen as one manifestation of a disordered life, and it is the disorder that has to be targeted. This is why “alcoholism,” as a distinct disorder, did not exist in the ancient world. This is a much larger and debated discussion, for which I am not truly qualified.
So, I question the merit of this objection. One of my seminary classmates has a long history of alcoholism and is now helping other alcoholics. I asked her about wine in the communion service, and she said (without hesitation) that it has no effect on her or anyone she knows. It is too little alcohol. And with intinction, it is entirely a non-issue. This is just an anecdote, and other alcoholics can disagree. But it is people like her that we have to hear, as we weigh this delicate issue.
Objection #2: “Wine” in the Bible is not really wine.
This objection can take a number of creative forms. The general approach is to emphasize how wine in the ancient world was diluted by water. This is true, to an extent. Wine is clean. It is pure and healthy (as we know now more than ever), protecting itself against parasites, which is the biggest reason why it was used so often as a common drink in Jesus’ day. In its everyday use, it was “cut” by water in order to make it last longer…but not in festivities. When Jesus turned the water into wine at Cana for the wedding celebration, it was the finest wine of the entire event, which means that is was definitely not cut by water.
It is hard to take this objection seriously. Even diluted wine is still wine, not grape juice. And the festal wine was not diluted. This objection only serves to further highlight the extent to which wine was part of the life and well-being of ancient societies. It was an everyday drink, safer than water, and yet it was also a celebratory drink for special occasions. These are not unconnected, it seems to me. Wine was a blessing. Amos 9:13. Joel 2:24. The prophets used it as an image of blessing in the restoration of Israel. Even today, when we don’t have to worry about unhealthy drinking water (at least not in the West), wine still has its celebratory association, which seems rather important in its signification within the Eucharist (which, after all, means “thanksgiving” for a reason).
Objection #3: Both wine and grape juice are “fruit of the vine” and that’s all that matters.
The expression, “fruit of the vine,” indicates wine. As Jesus said, “I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Matt. 26:29 NIV). Nonetheless, some have used “fruit of the vine” to indicate grape juice as well. As such, it is used as the essential feature of the wine. All that matters is that it is “fruit of the vine.” Thus, the fermentation does not really change anything substantially. The alcoholic content is accidental, in other words. But, are we really squabbling over alcohol content? That’s how it may seem.
But, I think the fermentation process is essential, not accidental. It’s more than about “alcohol content.” It’s about what the element (bread or wine) signifies, and grape juice does not have the same signification as wine. It lacks the festal and celebratory features noted under objection #2 above. Jesus chose wine for a reason. And I think one of the casualties, of switching to grape juice, has been the cheapening of the entire character of the eucharistic meal and celebration.
Conclusion
This is a quick discussion of the objections, with only the briefest of responses. I am convinced of the responses, which is why I wrote them! But even if you are not convinced, you have to ask yourself one question. Is it not significant that Jesus, the apostles, and over 1800 years of church history unanimously agreed on this? At the very least, that should be a haunting question.
For your listening pleasure, I will direct you to a sermon by Arden Hodgens, pastor of Trinity Reformed Baptist Church in La Mirada, California: “Wine vs. Grape Juice.” Hodgens, with the other elders of Trinity Reformed, changed the church’s practice from grape juice to wine! He doesn’t care about your opinion or preferences in regard to consuming alcohol. The only question is whether it is biblical to substitute grape juice for wine in the Lord’s Supper. It is not.
_______________
Image: Gundlach Bundschu, located in Sonoma Valley, is California’s oldest continuously family-owned winery. With my brother and our parents, I took a tour of their winery this past summer. It was fascinating. They are German Protestant, which meant that they had to close during prohibition, whereas the Catholic wineries were given an exemption for sacramental reasons! Of all the wineries we visited, Gun-Bun was by far the best.
dogmatics.wordpress.com 
Regarding wine as a problem for alcoholics in the reception of Holy Communion: in the Roman Catholic Church, and the Episcopal/Anglican Churches, reception of only one element (in this case the bread) is considered to carry the full sacramental benefit of partaking in the Body and Blood of Christ. When I was growing up in the RCC, laity were only allowed the bread; in the Episcopal church I now attend, communicants are welcome to receive only one of the elements at Communion if they so choose, for health or other reasons.
That’s right, I had forgotten about only receiving the bread. In Reformed theology, that would be problematic, of course, because we do not have a doctrine of presence that focuses on the elements (as in the Catholic doctrine that the whole of Christ is present in the bread, as with the wine, so taking only the bread is sufficient).
Would Reformed theology assert that, if someone chose to forgo the wine for health reasons, or out of concern for recovery from alcoholism, they would not be fully participating in the sacrament, or receiving its full benefits?
No, I don’t think any Reformed theologian would say that. Rather, the focus is on the ceremony as a whole and participation therein, where Christ is present through the Holy Spirit. So, the question — whether partaking of both of the elements is necessary — is not a question that I have ever seen in Reformed theology. I could be wrong.
Agreed. As you’ll probably know, George Hunsinger actually feels “embarrassed” by Protestant Communions where “little trays of pre-cut white bread are passed through the pews, to be followed by larger, more cumbersome trays with grape-juice-filled little cups (these days, more often than not, even disposable plastic cups” (The Eucharist and Ecumenism [2008], p. 332).
But then let’s go the whole hog. Unlike British Anglican eucharists with which I’m familiar, let’s ditch the sweet, brownish, yukky-tasting sherry-like crap but for a good (say) Shiraz which can be run around the mouth and truly enjoyed. And while we’re at it, a loaf of bread, please, not those lousy little wafers.
Yes, that’s a great quote from Hunsinger. I have a fantastic quote from Buechner that I will post soon. As for decent wine and an actual loaf of bread, amen! The first time that I ever had a loaf of bread in Communion was when I was in Aberdeen in the Church of Scotland. I was thrilled. It was a small enough group that we could stand in a circle at the front of the church and pass the loaf and the cup to each other. It remains one of the most meaningful Communion services that I have ever experienced.
I agree wholeheartedly. My (Anglican) church uses wafers, which I am not wild about but don’t mind, and wine in a chalice. Some go for intinction, some like myself drink. Spurred by a question from a friend, I did pose this problem to my priest. He said he has the freedom to make a “pastoral concession,” where he could either 1) Allow them to take only the bread,or 2) receive grape juice, but he said it never came up and everything he has read points towards this not being much of an issue.
The whole grape juice issue is especially perturbing to me because of my college experience in a dispensational school. Innumerable times I was told that this theological position was the only one that took the bible literally. I didn’t throw out dispensationalism because of the hypocrisy of their Eucharistic practice, but it sure didn’t help.
Yes, it isn’t much of an issue in those communions, in my experience. It is odd how Baptists, who pride themselves on their rigorous biblicism and anti-creedalism, are obviously the least biblical and the most historically-conditioned when it comes to this issue.
[…] we use wine or grape juice in the Eucharist? This blogger argues for […]
[…] is a follow-up quote for my previous post, “The Case for Wine.” I’ve seen this quote, from bloggers and elsewhere, multiple times, and it is worth sharing […]
Hi Kevin. Interesting discussion. I wonder if there is such a thing as a Eucharistophile? The only reason being that so many that i know simply dont care at all about this conversation. I do and i find the conversation helpful. I do come out of a holiness tradition and perhaps that says it all. However, i have a high view of the Lord’s Table. In my little church we elevate the host, and consecrate it as well but i do not dwell much on why. We also practice intinction with actual bread. But it is not unleavened and we use juice. To introduce wine would not be insurmountable but would certainly cause a stir. Not really worth it from my standpoint. We are a plebian sort of holiness movement, though definitely lean in towards reformed theology.
I would really like to see the Buechner quote. I also like the idea of Shiraz!! ha… that is fun. But again i wonder if serving wine is a distraction from the true focus, meditation on Christ, then i wonder if we are serving well.
This appears to me to be a close-minded version of reality. The bible has two critical forces. One is that there are many parts of the bible that are never meant to change. A few examples are the ten commandments and the Lord’s prayer… The other is that there are parts of the bible that are meant to “grow” as society changes. Otherwise we would all be wearing the attire of the past, electricity and other conveniences would not be allowed. God gave man the ability to think, to choose. When some is murdered by another, people tend to blame God. God did not do this, man did. There are people who believe that following the tenants of the bible seriously and remain secluded to be guaranteed a place in heaven. Jesus did not stay home. He walked among believers and sinners. This is the greatest test of man. To continue to believe in God while facing constant temptations is a greater feat than hiding to avoid temptations. Water and other beverages were not safe to drink. Fermenting grapes, which turned grape juice into wine was a purifying measure that allowed wine to be a safer beverage for a longer period. Whether people realized or not, regular citris fruits were only available for a period of time each year. Thus wine had a longer “shelf life.” The importance of this is that it worked against scurvy. We are in a different age. Many people choose not to drink anything alcoholic and this is not because they are alcoholics. It is a choice.
We can all “make a rice pudding of the bible” a methodist minister of mine said. Playing on words to make excuses or to get our point across isn’t clever. We know that wine in the bible was alcoholic. We know that people got drunk. We also know that it was a celebratory drink. Jesus still used wine, provided wine at the wedding and drank it at the last supper. Jesus knew that some people would abuse the wine. We have to question why Jesus would still tell us to drink wine at the taking of bread and wine then. Are we questioning the wisdom of Jesus’s command? Also, the blood of Jesus is the most precious holy thing. How can the church be arrogant enough to take it upon itself to change the representation of Jesus blood to juice…..maybe one day when people totally disregard the the precious holiness of Jesus blood we’ll be given coca cola. I’m Pentecostal by the way and at my church we take juice. I’m very uncomfortable with it.