The following is a monthly article written by Rev Kenneth Stewart to the Stornoway RPCS congregation…

Wine in the Lord’s Supper (Part Three)

Dear congregation,

Over the last two months, we’ve been considering the (relatively) recent trend of avoiding the use of wine in favour of grape juice, or some other juice, at the Lord’s Table.

Although the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper is the historic practice of the church right across Christendom and is also the biblical practice – as we are demonstrating – its use has become problematic for many who refuse to take it on principle.

And while this may seem a small matter to some, we need to recognise that those who believe that wine should be used and those who believe that it should not be used cannot partake of the same elements.

Now, most of us will be aware that the Lord’s Table is intended both to demonstrate and deepen the unity of the Lord’s people. And, that being the case, this profound disagreement regarding the nature of the elements is bound to disrupt that unity in a tragic and unacceptable manner.

In all our examination of this matter, it is necessary to remember that observing the sacraments was not the church’s idea. Both sacraments (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper) were appointed by God, who also regulates their use. And where God has spoken, we are not at liberty to amend or innovate. And it is our deeply held conviction that God has appointed wine, and only wine, to symbolise the blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, and that we have no liberty or authority to deviate from that.

As we’ve seen over the last two months, both Old and New Testaments teach us that wine is to be received as a gift from God. Although, sadly, open to abuse – as are all God’s gifts – the provision of wine is presented as a blessing and was to be enjoyed as such.

We have also noted that wine, and other fermented drinks, were used in both social and religious contexts under both the old and new covenants: In social contexts, their use was to be characterised by moderation while in religious contexts (worship), their use was precisely regulated by God.

However, despite these facts, abstentionists argue that while taking alcohol might not be sinful in itself, it is still wiser to abstain from it. They have three reasons for saying so.

First, they claim that it is safer for themselves to do so, particularly if they were enslaved by alcohol before.

Second, they claim that it is a poor witness to unbelievers – and, perhaps especially, to children – who may come to be enslaved by it.

Third, they claim that it is an offence to weaker brethren who have a weakness in that area or, indeed, a principled objection to it.

So, according to the abstentionist, setting the example of taking such drinks is liable either to lead himself or others onto a dangerous path which might lead to sin, or to offend those amongst them, including Christians, who might believe that it is not just dangerous but unlawful to drink them.

Therefore, it is argued, the requirement of love should lead to total abstinence even if there is no law against the use of alcohol as such. This kind of teaching is based on scriptures such as Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 – 10.

A serious issue

Now, it is worth stating at the outset that this is a serious issue. The Bible clearly warns us against putting unnecessary stumbling-blocks in the way of brothers and sisters in Christ, as well as in the way of an unbelieving world, and so we need the constant guidance of God to enable us to walk in love instead of giving needless offence.

However, in light of the fact that God alone is Lord of the conscience and has left it free from the dictates of man, to argue for a blanket ban on what is God-given and on what God has pronounced good, for fear of leading into sin or of giving offence, would be to misuse the relevant passages of scripture and would not be correct.

Before considering our duty to a weaker brother – which is, possibly, the most serious of these issues – we should note the following:

First, if the Bible expresses of something, we are not at liberty to condemn it. And, as we have seen, the Bible not only refrains from disapproving of alcohol but approves of its moderate and appropriate use and teaches that it is a gift of God.

Second, the logic which requires Christians to abstain from the use of alcoholic drinks on the basis that they are abused in our society is a logic which would lead to total abstinence from many non-alcoholic drinks and foods – particularly those high in refined sugar or caffeine.

Third, it is not the use of wine that is a bad witness, but the unlawful use of it – and children, as they come of age, should be instructed, by word and example, as to its lawful use. And, particularly, they should be taught that drunkenness is not just sinful and dangerous for themselves but for others too. And we should emphasise here that this danger is a very great danger: none of what is written here is meant to excuse careless and immoderate use of fermented drink. Indeed, drunkenness is now hardly mentioned as a sin, which is a grave omission in pulpit proclamation as it leads a person to a lost eternity (1 Corinthians 6:10).

Fourth, and in connection with a witness to unbelievers in particular, it is beyond doubt that Christ and his disciples partook of fermented drinks despite the fact that sinful men abused these drinks to their own destruction at the time in which Jesus lived – as they still do today (see 1 Corinthians 5:11; 1 Corinthians 6:10).

Indeed, although Jesus Himself was falsely accused of abusing wine (Luke 7:31-35) he continued his practice of drinking it – after all, he created a substantial amount for consumption in a social context (John 2:1-12).

Surely, no Christian would think of accusing Christ of behaving unwisely in that situation?

These general points alone should be enough to resolve the issue, but it is worth looking at the matter more closely – if only to discover where the fallacy lies in believing that the Bible teaches us always to refrain from what is clearly good in itself.

We need to examine, first, our duty to the ‘alcoholic’ and then our relation to the ‘weaker brother’ who may believe that it is unlawful to drink fermented drinks.

Space only allows us to do the first of these this month.

Responsibility to the Alcoholic

‘Alcoholics’, as they are now termed, are people who have acquired a certain kind of dependence upon alcohol – or, to use current language, they have become ‘addicted’ to it.

The problem, however, with the concept of addiction is that it needs proper definition – particularly within a Biblical framework which must do full justice to the reality of sin.

All too often, the term ‘addiction’ is used to mean a helpless dependence upon something over which a person has little or no control and for which, therefore, he is not particularly responsible – and this definition or understanding of the concept is uncritically accepted by many Christians.

However, for a Christian with a proper understanding of sin, such an understanding will not do.

It is far better to think of an addiction as a persistent inability to resist indulging in something unlawful or to overindulge in something lawful – with the addicted person being fully responsible for that inability.

In other words, while there are undoubtedly physiological and psychological dimensions to alcohol addiction, the problem lies fundamentally in the will of the addicted person. In this way, addiction to alcohol is really no different from any other kind of persistent, or ‘addictive’ sinful behaviour – including addiction or enslavement to pornography or sugar.

The Bible teaches that all of us, since the Fall, are predisposed to sin by nature – and, indeed, predisposed to some sins more than others – but that we are all responsible for our own sins. Indeed, the person who habitually and sinfully abuses alcohol is really no different from the person who habitually and sinfully abuses any other good gift that God has given us.

Terminology is of vital importance in these matters. For example, a person may be physiologically and psychologically addicted to particular foods or to sex, which the Bible refers to as, respectively, ‘gluttony’ and ‘fornication’. The Bible refers to the person enslaved to these as a ‘glutton’ or a fornicator’. When we rename them ‘food addicts’ or ‘sex addicts’ the adoption of the new terminology has the effect of taking away the sinfulness of these conditions and reducing them simply to the status of medical conditions.

Of course, when we do that, we begin to think of the enslaved person as a victim and not as a truly responsible agent and as someone only in need of help rather than needing repentance. Similarly, the Bible’s term for one who is addicted to alcohol is not ‘alcoholic’ but ‘drunkard’ (Proverbs 23:21; 1 Corinthians 5:11). While the term may be less pleasant, it reminds us that our personal agency remains when we are in our state of addiction as does our accountability.

Now, in order to properly help someone abusing alcohol, it is necessary to help him to see that his problem is not that he has inherited or acquired an incurable disease called ‘alcoholism’ but that he has allowed himself to become seriously dependant, both in mind and body, on that particular substance in such a way that he now lives in express violation of God’s holy law. As we saw above, in biblical terms, he is a ‘drunkard’ (cf. 1 Cor. 5:11; 1 Cor. 6:10).

The answer for such a person is the same as the answer for all sinners, irrespective of the sins to which they have been ‘addicted’: the power of God! The Holy Spirit delivers an addicted person from the dominion of their sinful habit by renewing the will and by the exercise of faith and repentance – which involves an honest acknowledgement of the sinfulness of the addiction and personal responsibility for it.

To fail to believe this is to reduce the power of the gospel – or to transform it into something less than a full gospel. After all, the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to all who believe (Romans 1:16). Paul tells us that all things are lawful for him but that he ‘will not be brought under the power of any’ (1 Corinthians 6:12). He further teaches ‘reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord…let not sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts…for sin shall not have dominion over you for you are not under law but under grace’ (Romans 6:11-14)

The drunkard is, therefore, no longer under the tyranny or dominion of anything that is either lawful or unlawful: Indeed, once he is saved, the drunkard is not to reckon himself a drunkard any more – along with the thief, the covetous and the fornicator (and all other kinds of sinners) he has been washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Note, by the way, that none of the rest of the sins listed in these verses is an incurable disease either.

This is why it is very unwise to tell a convert from alcohol abuse that he will relapse into alcohol dependency if he takes one sip of wine at the Lord’s Supper. On the contrary, it is simply impossible to fall into sin through the proper and faithful use of God’s ordinances. To imply that God will not preserve the one who was a drunkard when he takes wine in loving obedience to him at the Lord’s Table is naked unbelief. I have personally known hundreds of people with serious issues with alcohol – not one, to my knowledge, reverted to drink through the reception of wine in the Lord’s Supper.

Therefore, although it runs completely counter to contemporary thought, the best answer to misuse is not disuse but proper use. The Christian should strive for a lawful use of money, sex, food, and alcohol and should not accept lacking self-control in any of these areas.

However, it needs to be emphasised that the previously addicted person, while meaningfully delivered by Christ, may always have a particular vulnerability in that area of life in which they were specially enslaved– although that is by no means always the case – and must therefore take special care with respect to temptation in that area. But while that fact will increase vigilance socially, it cannot do away with the glorious truth that the person who once abused alcohol has every right to expect that God will preserve him when he comes, in obedience and faith, to a lawful use of alcohol at the Lord’s Table.

In other words, even if you do decide before the Lord that it is best for you to abstain from fermented drinks as a rule of life for you, you do not have the right to impose that decision upon the elements of the Lord’s Table. Rather, as was the case until recent years, those who have adopted abstinence as a rule of life, will make an exception for the Lord’s Table, where the Lord has commanded otherwise. We are not wiser than God.

There is one more consideration which I will close with next month, God willing – and that is our duty to a weaker brother who does not see that it is right or wise for him to take fermented drink either at the Lord’s Table or anywhere else. Does his weakness in this area mean that the church must change her practice to accommodate him?

Your minister