I had an interesting discussion with Matt the other day about what ought to be served at communion (wine, juice, Mountain Dew, French bread, wafers, Pop Tarts). It seemed like the type of discussion folks here might be interested in.
One of my main concerns in the discussion was how the wine and bread folks are often the most challenged when they are the ones who take the scriptures at face value. They are often the ones who have to defend their position most rigorously when it is the reasoning of the juicers that is suspect and novel. Interesting...
Right now, if I was in charge and my congregation was on board, I'd probably serve red wine with some cups of red wine diluted with juice (for training the youngsters). And I'd use a substantial bread so that one's mouth and stomach could actually experience the eating.
Talk amongst yourselves...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
it doesn't matter what you use so as the representation is made that it is the flesh and blood of Christ. I don't like wine and I like the option for juice. I would much rather see sangria there (and if my translation is correct that has something to do with blood) and a nice cheesy bread (but that is a matter of taste).
I don't think alcohol content should even factor into the reasoning of if you should serve it or not. The Bible says wine and bread, but who knows what they used as wine and bread (I do know it wasn't a merlot or a '2 buck chuck' like you wine lovers serve).
What about mocha steamers and a hot dog from Quick Trip? That would be an awesome Lord's supper.
If you are going to deconstruct wine into a genus, I'd argue that a fermented beverage would be a more appropriate classification than a grape product or just something drinkable. Both bread and wine have attributes of new or resurrection life to them that make it highly probable that Jesus knew what he was doing when he used those elements.
And to your "who knows what they used as wine?" question, it is plain what wine was in the Bible. Now, whether it be merlot or what have you, that is beside the point.
beside the point?
it is the point!
You tell me that the Bible tells me to use wine but what is that? You can't tell me that the stuff they serve at your church is the same as the stuff Christ poured. So why not juice or Cran-apple or milk? Your service of cultural wine is as arbitrary as me serving Cherry Limeades.
And if you say that the only qualifier of beverage is that it has an alcohol content then I would say that is lame and makes your argument to use wine weaker since a whole genera of drink is available.
What about Brandy? That is a fermented grape product.
Wine is wine. What is cultural wine?
I didn't say that the only qualifier should be that it be alcohol, I said if you were going to go the route of deconstructing wine alcohol makes more sense than grapes or juice. deconstructing the element into broader categories is a bad argument. I brought it up to show how it can go any number of ways and that if you were going to pick one there are better choices than the grape juice route.
Interestingly, it is mostly referred to as "the cup" and Jesus implies that the contents of the cup is "the fruit of the vine." Whatever that means.
saying wine is wine is like saying beer has always been beer, when that is not true. What we drink today is vastly different than it was 50 years ago let alone 2000.
So now we have to argue what kind of cup he used?
[Disclaimer: The below is unschooled opinion.]
Aside from the wine conversation, I am a bit miffed as to why the bread used in many instances of the Lord's Supper is leavened. I might be mistaken, but when Christ instituted the rite, were they not celebrating the passover? And would not the bread have been unleavened?
But to say that we might as well use hot dogs I believe is a sloppy way to handle scripture. A loaf of bread from Christ's era I'm sure was vastly different even from the most rustic bread available at any US public market today. But that doesn't mean we throw up our hands and use Eggo waffles, and Jesus was NOT the weiner of life.
And wine. What do we know. We know it more than likely was "fruit of the vine." And we know it more than likely came from a winepress. And four of the first five instances of the word wine in scripture involve drunkeness (2 for Noah, and two for Lot. The fifth interestingly is in regards to Melchizedek bringing forth bread and wine).
Again, the wine used at the table in the early Roman church was probably not the same vintage as that used by the Christ. Go anywhere in the world and ask for wine, and you'll never get espresso. Not Kool-aid. Not a magarita.
Thinking like this leads to throwing out the bible all together. Jesus was the chief cornerstone. Well why not just go ahead and say he was really a latch on the window. I mean how do we know that the stone was really a rock and the corner not really the peak of the roof. And cheif. Howabout just marginal. We'll just make him the token ADA required bathroom grab bar.
I have heard it said that leavening refers to the old dough, or starter dough, held over from the previous bread and not to the yeast itself. Which makes sense. I believe in the OT (and I'm working from memory here) that the idea was to leave everything behind in Egypt and start anew. So they weren't to use starter dough, the dough from their days in Egypt, to leaven their bread. That doesn't mean they couldn't use yeast from scratch. Yeast wasn't the issue.
Back to the wine issue. I think questioning the universality of wine is unfounded and slips toward, as Brent showed, a skepticism of every noun in the Bible. Wine making is not a complicated or advanced process. There is no good reason to think wine was different then than now. Because "we don't know for sure" or because "in all possible worlds there might be a different way" is not a substantive enough argument to move away from using wine.
What I'd like to see is a good reason for not using wine. Skepticism about what NT wine is is not a good reason not to use it. Something besides the tempting alcoholics reasoning, please.
The starter thing sort of makes sense. So sourdough is out?
But in the day when packaged yeast was not available, this would mean essentially a yeastless bread.
Now this takes us down an interesting then vs. now quiz. Is using commecially available yeast in our sacrament bread akin to running the air conditioned during the sacraments, or is it a more fundamental change in the substance of the sacrament?
In the sermon's where this had been explained to me the emphasis was on the standing up, the sandals on your feet, being ready to go, and in regards to the bread, not waiting for the yeast to rise (punch it down, shape a loaf, let it rise again, etc., etc.). I've never heard a word about new vs. old. It seems to fit well, but then again the Israelites did take substantial possesions, including the very gold of the Egyptians...
My thoughts on the yeast thing are that yeast is not the issue. I believe a yeastless bread would probably be impossible. And the rising issue might be technically impossible as well. You could make your bread in such a way as to minimize the rising, but no rising, I don't know if that is technically possible. But I am no expert, this is all from the hip. If it is true that a yestless and riseless bread is impossible 2000 years ago, then we might say the holdover dough(sourdough) was what was in view. But, again, I'm no expert on the art of ancient bread making.
yeast is an animal that eats sugar (or starch) and produces CO2. This CO2 is trapped in the dough (or bottle what ever the case may be) and cause the dough to expand. This is why there are holes or air spaces in the bread. A yeast less bread would be along the lines of a focaccia (sp?) or something that would resemble a pizza crust or tortilla.
The only difference in old yeast and new yeast is...nothing. The yeast is an animal that produces more yeast and then dies. Taking about old yeast and new yeast is like talking about old people and new people but the difference is that yeast is alive for a few hours (or a day). Common household yeast comes in two forms; liquid and powered (dry). The powered yeast has been coated with a product to keep it dormant and when exposed to warm water the crust breaks down and the yeasts get to work. Liquid is kept dormant via temperature and once brought up to room temp goes to work.
My guess would be that since the OT and NT folks didn't have the ability to encapsulate yeast or keep it cool then they worked with a 'hold over' approach. However, you do not need yeast to make bread, you just get a heavy, dense bread. Yeast only fluffs it up.
So if George is wrong about the bread, it would lead me to think he is wrong about the wine aspect too.
In the words of Monty Python, 'Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who'. It doesn't matter what we use only that we 'do this in remembrance of him'.
Yeah, even before I became a believer I knew that hot dog buns and grape juice was just not right (that is what one guy in our fraternity wanted everybody to partake of before chapter meetings, but that is a whole nother story rife with all kinds of issues). George makes the argument well here, so no need to re-hash it.
Matt - your logic is pretty obtuse on this one.
Now that Gammons has spoken, and this is settled, you may go about your business.
I've been outta town, so I'm coming in late on this one. Hope y'all haven't given up yet.
About leaven / yeast: Remember, it was only forbidden at Passover. It is actually required in the fellowship offering that accompanied Pentecost every year. Yeast / leaven represents the fruits of the new kingdom. At passover, you leave all the old leaven behind (a whole week would be enough to kill it all off) and start with new leaven. Remember, too, that with the first passover, the leaven was all Egyptian. The next year, when they were *supposed* to be in the Promised Land, they would have obtained the new leaven of that land (which they would offer in the Pentecost feast). So, basically, leaven / yeast / sourdough doesn't matter now. We ought to do different things at different times, and tell people why we're doing it. 'The bread this week is unleavened, so as you partake of the Supper, remember that because of Jesus we've died to the old leaven of sin'. Or, "The bread this week is Hawaiian Sweetbread, which can represent the fruit of the new kingdom we are a part of because of the finished work of Jesus and our union with Him." That kind of thing.
Regarding wine / alcohol: I don't think the Corinthians would have had to have been told to slow down on the cup because they were all getting drunk if it were just Welches. Wine is wine. I've heard the best is port (perhaps cut with water like the Anglicans).
Interestingly, I've had an ongoing discussion with our Head of Staff about this. He's an older fellow (in his 70s I think) and believes all EtOH is bad. He gave me a little book written by a Princeton guy arguing that "fruit of the vine" is jsut grape juice (the guy even argues that the reason the wine Jesus made at the wedding was better was because it wasn't alcoholic). It was the best he had. But I found it entirely unconvincing.
The point, though, that is most important vis-a-vis the Eucharist is unity. If it is an issue that divides the congregation, then don't make a deal of it. Have both and let folks choose. Teach them slowly what it means, bring them along slowly, all that.
And for heaven's sake, remember that it is a celebration, and not a funeral!
Sorry that was so long.
Thanks, Jeff. Interesting stuff.
Thanks, George.
A couple more things about the importance of the wine being alcoholic:
First, I've heard it said that bread is an "alpha" food, consumed at the beginning of the day in order to give strength and energy for the work that lies ahead; wine, on the other hand, is "omega" food--it is consumed at the end of the day when the work is done (and, in the Bible, usually by a King). Wine was forbidden to be consumed by the priests ministering at the Tab / Temple; if it was there, it was poured out and not drunk in God's presence, the reason being that the "work" of establishing the Kingdom was not yet complete. Jesus, at the Last Supper, transformed all that. He *gave* the apostles wine and *commanded* that they drink it, and do it perpetually. The King was preparing to rest from His work, and was setting up a situation where He would share that rest with us once a week, until we enter into perpetual feasting at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. So, the wine has got to be something that actually "gladdens the heart of man".
Secondly, fermentation takes time and effort. It is not just grape juice, it is grape juice that has been *glorified* by human efforts (and patience, and care, and skill, etc.). It seems that fermentation itself provides a pregnant image of kingdom growth.
More food for thought . . .
I like to drink beer perpetually. Does that count for anything?
Fermentation is also the natural process of biodegration. Any bio-mass that decomposes (or has something decompose it like bateria or yeast) produces alcohol. That is what they are trying to do with ethanol. I think it is kind of a stretch to say man glorifies the grapes more by fermenting them, since that is what rotting grapes want to do.
Now Mountain Dew is the work of years and years of man general knowledge. Christ would totally 'Do the Dew'.
And you shouldn't start your day with bread, there is a lot of empty calories in that. A nice protein followed with a little carb. is a good way to start.
Well, not exactly . . .
The whole biodegration (is that really a word?) process, if left to its own, produces vinegar (acetic acid) and not ethanol. Fermentation has to be helped along carefully if the goal is EtOH. So I think there is an element of human effort involved. Ask any wine (or beer) maker. Rotting grapes make vinegar. Glorified grapes make wine. Really glorified grapes make a Bordeaux.
Regarding protein, if I remember correctly, our forefathers got in a whole lot of trouble in the wilderness when they complained about the lack of protein--they ended up with quail coming out of their ears, didn't they?
Jeff, you're da bomb! You should change you last name to Bomb-bach.
Post a Comment