The Lord’s Supper - Part 1
March 15th, 2006It’s time for the long awaited Lord’s Supper post. OK, long awaited by myself and maybe one other guy.
The Lord’s Supper - the wine and bread taken in remembrance of Jesus - is one of only two explicit Christian ordinances, the other being baptism. Jesus said specifically that we are to “do this in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19) and Paul tells us that by doing so, we “proclaim the Lord’s death till he come ” (I Corinthians 11:26). It seems to me it’s pretty important. And because it’s my nature, I tend to think we need to be extra careful with the important things.
There are a few observations I’d like to make about different ways I’ve seen the Lord’s Supper done in various places. I’m going to spread them out into separate posts. But I think I’ll start with one that really strikes a nerve with me. And what will probably be the most controversial.
Juice instead of wine?
How can it possibly be that modern churches use grape juice instead of wine? I simply can’t view it as anything but a corruption due to a strong predisposition to consider alcohol forbidden. The gymnastics I’ve heard or read to justify this are at best weak in my opinion. I will lay out very little at this point proposing that we should use wine for this because it seems so obviously the simplest reading of the texts. It’s really up to those who oppose the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper to explain why not. I’ve heard and read a number of those attempts, and those are primarily what I’d like to deal with here.
The first thing to deal with briefly and generally is the predisposition that alcohol is forbidden to Christians. I do not think this is correct. Jesus turned water to wine (John 2:1-11) and there are reasons directly in the text to strongly lead me to believe that it was certainly not juice (as some suggest οινος can sometimes be translated). He used wine at His last supper. Paul recommends wine to soothe Timothy’s stomach (1 Tim. 5:23). Some folks will dispute those things, but most folks recognize them as being (at a bare minimum) fair representations of the actual texts.
Am I saying then that there is nothing to be wary of concerning wine. No! We are to “be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess” (Eph. 5:18). But even in that warning, we see an important key: excess. Even when we are warned that wine will “at the last… biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder,” we know that is not an automatic effect of the presence of any alcohol, or we’d suffer from the use of cough medicine or vanilla in cookies. It’s plainly from the kind of alcohol use which causes the user’s “eyes [to] behold strange things, And [their] heart [to] utter perverse things.” Excessive use. Abuse. Drunkenness. Drunkenness is forbidden to the Christian. But wine is not explicitly forbidden. And I suggest it is not even implicitly forbidden when context is considered.
That’s a large topic which could be discussed a lot more, but at least you have a basic idea of where I’m coming from. We’ll discover nuances and details as we begin to look at the objections folks will bring against using wine in the Lord’s Supper. And I want to note that it is often brilliant, wonderful, steadfast, Bible-believing Christians who have that perspective. I know many personally. Some I hold in very high regard. But when I see plain texts and simple logic that opposes a view they might have, I can’t hold their view simply out of respect.
Watered Down Wine
One of the most common things I hear is that while it may well have been wine, it was far weaker than the wine we have today. Various scholars suggest that the wine that the Jews used during the Passover was reduced with water. Edersheim suggests (I’m going from memory here) 3 parts water to 1 part wine; apparently some recent scholars have it diluted even further to 10:1 or more. I’m actually very sympathetic to this idea. If we can back up those ideas, then let’s use that information and perhaps even bring that into practice. But make no mistake: using juice is not the same as using diluted wine. As I joke with Helen, wine is plainly post-juice.
But on further consideration, why is diluted wine even a benefit to those who think alcohol use is at least undesirable? If alcohol is forbidden, then having a little bit in there should be forbidden. If they would suggest that weaker wine is less likely to cause harm, I would ask what harm they expect the amount of wine used during the Lord’s Supper to cause?
But, I don’t think it was all that watered down, and I’m staying solidly in Scripture to make the point:
When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord’s supper: for in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you? In this I praise you not. (1 Cor. 11:20-22)
Here, in the plain context of the Lord’s Supper (cf. v.23-34), we have folks, well, being “drunken”. Some folks showed up and ate and drank as though they didn’t have their own homes to eat and drink in, and did so by grabbing up what was there and leaving little for others. But can you even imagine drinking enough 3:1 wine to be “drunken”? Let alone 10:1. Blech.
Regardless, it seems plain to me that there was alcohol in the wine those believers used for the Lord’s Supper. And in being corrected, they weren’t told to abstain from alcohol or to use juice. They were told to have proper respect for the Lord’s Supper, and warned not to eat or drink in an unworthy manner. Both very serious warnings.
The Weaker Brother
One subtle variation on that theme is recognizing that though it may be that wine was used, since we are told to do nothing that might cause a weaker brother to stumble (Romans 14), and since wine is definitely a stumbling block for some, it can’t be used in corporate worship.
This strikes me as very problematic for a number of reasons. First, if it is so that the very tiny amount of alcohol is a danger to one who is weak concerning wine, then how can we be offering the bread? Some are weak concerning food. Should we be tempting the glutton to eat? If the answer comes back that the amount of food is so small it isn’t actually a stumbling block, why isn’t the same logic applied to the wine? If the answer comes back that the weaker brother will have to develop or pray for self control, or that the Lord will give him the strength he needs to overcome, but we nevertheless need to break and eat bread since the Lord instructed us to do it, then again, why not apply the same reasoning to the wine? There are two elements to the Lord’s Supper. Either one of them could become an idol.
Second, the weaker brother is to be handled gently, but is not to be left weak. We are never to compel someone to act counter to their conscience, but it may very well be that they are misinformed and need to be taught; need to grow. We wouldn’t think twice about taking the one who is uncomfortable sharing their faith and teaching them that Scripture tells us that we need to be willing and able to share the Good News. Why would we be uncomfortable instructing someone that our Lord chose both wine and bread to represent Him, and so we need to honor what He chose, and submit our weaknesses to His strength.
It is written “take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak,” (1 Cor 8:9) and Paul clearly states he would not offend one by (in this case) eating meat “while the world stands” (1 Cor 8:13). But we need to be careful to know what’s intended here. Because we do know that Peter did something which offended some in Jerusalem (Acts 11,12), and instead of apologizing, he taught. My point is this: we are not to be subject to a “tyranny of the weaker brother,” but we are told to grow and help grow.
A brother or sister in Christ may be offended by any number of things: clothes, mannerisms, cars, food, use of money or time, anything. We must always direct all believers to measure actions against Scripture, and we must recognize, as Paul does, that there is room for disagreement in Scripture (Rom. 14:3). In disagreeing about disputable things, we are not to judge each other, but bring the Word to our brethren and then leave it between them and the Lord. (Please note: those things which are explicitly sin, from gossip to murder, aren’t up for debate and do not warrant this treatment.)
Paul says “For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols. And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?” See what is lacking in the weak one: knowledge. Paul constantly teaches and corrects. It should not be that the wine of the Lord’s Supper offends. It’s what He chose. It should be that we are taught from the Scriptures what it’s proper place is. And certainly how corruption and sin lie close if we are disobedient.
I’ve heard and even seen written into church affirmations that wine must never be used in any case at any time because of this risk to the weaker brother, even at home away from any “brother’s” observation. But I can think of things which are just as potentially dangerous (one easy one I won’t mention as this is a G-rated blog) which do not suffer the same logic.
Third, the Lord turned water to wine at Cana. I will not here deal with the idea that he turned it to juice; it simply seems far too unlikely given the scene and text. It was wine. And it seems at least passingly interesting that it was for a group event. Was there no one there who may have had trouble with alcohol? I will concede that it is possible that Jesus knew perfectly that there was actually no one there at risk, but I will also suggest that such an idea seems forced. What we do see in the text is that He actually made wine. And that it was good, which was discovered only by drinking it. And all this in a public setting. He either knew perfectly that this miracle could be performed only because the nature of people in attendance could bear it without sin (an idea which is left completely unstated), or, in my opinion the simplest reading, He simply made wine for a group of people who then enjoyed it. Which makes it very difficult to support both the ideas that wine is inherently dangerous and that whether or not wine is permissible in theory, it is nevertheless forbidden due to concerns for those who may misuse it.
Last and perhaps most fundamentally, how can we consider for even a moment that it is OK to substitute anything for the wine of which the Lord said “this is my blood”. How dare we? If we can do this based on so tenuous a case, what else can we edit to our liking?
I’ve spent the most time on this aspect because it is very important. We must act lovingly to our brethren. We must not cause them to stumble. And if you are one reading who does not drink wine at all, I would not have you change to please me. But I would ask you to consider what the Lord chose to represent Himself, and whether you really feel that you have overwhelming evidence in Scripture to change what He seems so plainly to have chosen. And it must be overwhelming evidence.
Otherwise, I feel that we may be like Nadab and Abihu, offering what may be sincere worship, but is nevertheless not what God instructed.
So there should be plenty of seed for conversation there. What do you think?
March 17th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Good post! I wonder if it would be useful for someone to research exactly where and when the Church (universal) or aspects of it began to subsitute juice for wine. Is it specifically an American invention as many piety-minded and holiness-minded folks began to substitute juice for wine during the heady temperance days of the 1800s. Does it go back further to the Puritans in America? Or, does it somehow draw its strength from the Reformation days. Or, finally, was there an earlier period in Church history where this issue began to boil.
Determining that will let us see the issues surrounding the move to juice–and allow us/people to effectively counteract the reasons given at that time.
As is often the case in many areas of life, a decision is made years, decades or centuries ago and people continue to follow the dictates of that decision without thinking through the reasons for doing it.
So, I expect you to get busy doing the research! :)
March 17th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Thanks! :)
That does sounds like a good path to go down. Research… hey, you’re the sociologist… :)
One quick thought: per Don Kistler’s lecture Have the Puritans Gotten a Bad Rap? available on your site (caution, large MP3 file), the Puritans did not as a rule have an issue with alcohol. Which is interesting to me that they nevertheless still loom large as a group of people attempting to actively pursue holiness.
March 31st, 2006 at 11:31 pm
Great post! I was hoping to see a few responses (let alone one) from other-than-laypersons on the subject.
It is my opinion that this celebration ought not only to include drinking wine, but also be done so
on every occasion of corporate worship. Only once a month is the practice at where I go to worship. I am unaware of any scripture providing a prescription of frequency on the subject. Rather that we are to, “do this in rememberence of Me”.
I think that as believers, “remembering Him” is chief among the things we are supposed to be doing there in the first place.
I am vaguely aware of some of the objections to taking part in this celebration so frequently, and since this is not my blog I won’t go on any further on the subject. I just wanted to add a wrinkle to the debate. Well, hopefully a debate.
But back to the wine. I’m curious about congregations made up in large part of “recovering alcohlics”. Namely, what to do in cases like that.
I’m assuming that in these cases that caution is the order of the day, rather than the assertion that alcohol is the thing that is evil.
In this example these believers might still need to be informed and taught, but I, not being in those
shoes find it difficult suggesting they would do better using real wine.
Of course you might say that a congregation of “recovering gluttons” might just as easily be tempted into a gourge-fest at the taking of “His body”, as an alcoholic would be to a binge at the taking of “His blood”. But I am unaware of a glutton whose gluttony would cause his “eyes [to] behold strange things, and [his] heart [to] utter perverse things.”
All of this assumes of course that at the mere tasting of wine or bread would throw this weaker brother into a binge or a gourge-fest.
Assumptions aside, I’m not sure what to do with brethren who’s shoes I’ve not walked in.
April 5th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
I recieved a nice response via email from a professor of theology which I’ve asked for permission to post here in part. Part Two in this “series” is coming soon and I will need to spend more time on the alcohol topic before I can move on.
About dealing with a topic even though you may not have personal experience with, I don’t think that should be an impediment to discussion or even recommendation. We certainly don’t want to take a pastor’s advice on adultery only if he has experience in it.
While our experiences are limited, Scripture is authoritative on that which it speaks to. Sometimes it’s direct commentary, like adultery. Sometimes it’s not as direct, like whether we should watch movies. In the latter, we do our best to apply Scriptural concepts. And then we understand there’s room for disagreement and be careful to act in a loving fashion toward our brethren.
Biblical instruction and correction is one of those things which can and should be done if we really do love the brethren. After all, “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.” (1 Pet. 3:16, ASV)
And so, back to the topic of the Lord’s Supper, if it appears Scripture says things about how it should be done, then that should be shared. And then, in my opinion, you leave the believer to consider the facts and they are responsible before God as to what they do with them. It may mean great personal difficulty to change to conform to God’s revealed will. But I can’t see where that’s ever a factor that we get to use to decide whether we should change.
I’ll probably get more specific along those lines in Part Two.
April 8th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
[...] After The Lord’s Supper - Part 1, I spent some time wandering the internet in search of how folks have come to their opinions on whether wine should be used in the Lord’s Supper. I found a number of things which I’d like to follow up on and add to what I’ve started here. [...]
August 21st, 2006 at 2:00 pm
I am a minister for the conservative, non-instrumental Church of Christ. As you may know, we make the Lord’s Supper a central part of worship services. AFAIK, all or nearly all of our congregations in the United States use unleavened bread and grape juice (we have congregational autonomy, so this practice is not mandated from any kind of central office). To be honest, I don’t know when the tradition of using juice began, but you are probably right that it has deep socio-historical roots.
Nowadays, though, there is also a compelling legal issue: it is against the law to serve alcohol to people under the age of 21 — no ifs, ands, or buts. We have many baptized believers under that age, and so many potential underage drinkers. Of course, we also recognize that one’s duty to God transcends one’s duty to secular goverment. If we were compelled by Scripture to use fermented wine and only fermented wine, then I guess we’d have to go underground like the early church. But that doesn’t seem necessary.
It’s interesting that the Gospels repeatedly employ the phrase “fruit of the vine” in the context of the communion. Paul in 1 Cor. 10 and 11 refers only to the “cup.” Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying that this excludes the possibility that there was “real” wine in that cup. Indeed, Rabbinic tradition specifies that it contained wine mixed with water and was blessed explicitly as “fruit of the vine.” However, unfermented grape juice is still a product (gennema) of the vine (ampelos). To rule out grape juice, it seems, one would have to argue that the alcohol itself constitutes a theologically significant part of the observance. And yet we know that alcohol was incidental to the wine making process in the Ancient Near East — it was really difficult to prevent fermentation under normal circumstances. Thanks to modern technology we have an option, and that option is entirely consistent with NT teaching and secular law.
In addition, there is still the issue of conscience. Rom. 14 would not condemn the person who drinks from faith, but it would condemn the person who drinks not from faith. It would also condemn the one who judged the drinking or not drinking of wine. So, given that the serving of grape juice in the communion is entirely consistent with NT teaching, and constitutes the lowest common denominator (no one could object to drinking grape juice at the Lord’s supper) there is no compelling Biblical reason to serve something that would unnecessarily induce offense in many brethren (for whatever reason).
August 21st, 2006 at 8:45 pm
T.J., thanks very much for taking the time to leave thoughtful comments. Some of what you mention I comment on in my follow-up post on the topic, but the brief thoughts I have reading your specific comments are:
[A] In almost every (if not every) state there is an exemption for minors to be able to use alcohol as part of religious worship. There was a short period sometime in the 1990s where a Supreme Court ruling put this long-standing pratice in jeprody, but as I understand it, today that’s really not an issue. Caveat: I’m not a lawyer, though I play one on my blog.
Update: From Wikipedia: “[U.S.] Federal law explicitly provides for religious… exceptions.”
[B] I’m not really too concerned that we should “rule out grape juice” as much as I can’t see a compelling enough reason to have ruled it “in” in the first place. There’s little argument that both Christ and the early church used wine in the Lord’s Supper - likely diluted as you noted. So it seems to me that we need something very compelling to change the practice. Early Christians (and modern) had Romans 14 available and still used wine. Paul wrote Romans and didn’t comment on the use of wine at an incredibly opportune moment (again see part 2).
[C] As to arguing that the use of wine was a “theologically significant part of the observance”, that argument may actually be able to be made, but far easier for me is the fact the our perfect Lord chose a time and place where the wine would actually be as you describe it - containing alcohol by design or not - and neither He nor His followers inclined to shy us away from it’s use. Only from it’s abuse. (Which I also condemn.)
[D] Per Romans 14, I also would never judge or condemn someone who was truly convinced they should not use wine. But let it be because of a Biblically sustainable position. And if it isn’t, then it should be changed, as with any thing where Scripture beckons us to conform to His expressed will despite our predispositions and desires.
[E] “[G]iven that the serving of grape juice in the communion is entirely consistent with NT teaching” is kind of begging the question. I’m actually asking whether it is. “Cup” and “fruit of the vine” are wonderfully consistent with the “wine” He made in John 2 and the wine we know was traditionally used in the very Passover He celebrated. But juice isn’t. Trying to squeeze juice (very punny) into there is very difficult.
[F] As to the “lowest common denominator”, does that really sound like God’s best? Do we encourage that peoples’ giving be the lowest common denominator? grin Again, see my second post; I’m pretty skeptical about that approach.
My perhaps-too-idealistic perspective is that we should always be lifing people up into the truth, not letting everyone drift down into “acceptable”. I feel like by using juice instead of wine we are pretty plainly not doing what they were doing then, and the “why” of doing it this relatively new way is not based on good explicit instruction. What does this teach individuals about how to apply Scripture to their own lives?
I do realize that I argue these points pretty strongly, but please understand that I do not thus think that anyone not using wine is the Lord’s Supper is in some form of danger or extreme disobedience. I know that the vast majority don’t think twice about it, and those who do are just convinced it should be so. Nevertheless, it just doesn’t seem as close as possible to the revealed Word of God. So I offer up my little observations.
It may be that we disagree, but I nevertheless appreciate that you took some time to bounce back some ideas. We’ll both know for sure on the other side. And we’ll be having the fruit of the vine at THAT supper for sure. :)
And thanks for your notes on the kind of congregation you minister to. Odd duck that I am, I find ecclesiology interesting.
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:52 pm
[A] I’ll retract my absolute statement regarding the serving of alcohol to underage persons. A quick check of our State laws confirms that there is an exception for “established religious purposes.” That’s interesting to know. I can’t help thinking, however, that if the church were to serve alcoholic wine to a 12-year-old Christian whose parents were not present, who were not members of the church, and didn’t approve of said practice, there would be all sorts of trouble. This is merely a pragmatic argument against the serving of alcohol if, indeed, we have a choice between serving fermented versus unfermented wine. (Pragmatic arguments have no place in the church if they serve to undermine the express commandments of God.)
[B] [C] It seems to me that the “very compelling” reason for changing the practice really has to do with the historical and sociological issues which you raise here (one of the most interesting articles I have read along these lines, by the way, is David F. Musto, “Alcohol in American history,” Scientific American, April 1996, 274[4]:78ff). The U.S. and other traditionally anglo-Western countries (I am thinking in particular of Britain, Australia, & New Zealand) have been plagued by rampant alcohol abuse for the last 150 years. There are multiple factors here, but urbanization, secularization, and mass production (of alcoholic beverages) are significant. This situation, I would contend, is very different from the world of Jesus. The point is that we are now incapable of regarding alcohol in the same way that the people of the 1st Century regarded alcohol. So, yes, Jesus did come at a time when it was very hard to prevent fermentation in freshly harvested grapes. We live in time, however, when even wine itself is associated with large-scale abuse (hence, “wino”). It is this very situation which calls the church to make a stand and be a city set on hill. Our abstinence is based, not on the misconception that alcohol is intrinsically evil, but on the desire to shine our light — little though it may be — on the horrors of alcohol abuse in our society today. I’m not advocating a “social gospel” here. However, our personal abstinence is one of the many ways in which we can be counter-cultural for the right reasons in the right way. By extension, the church militant can make a stand against prevailing social conditions by simply refusing to participate, and that would include not buying or using wine for the communion.
[D] The trick here is to determine Jesus’ “expressed will.” Does He expressly forbid the use of grape juice? To answer “yes” is going to be an uphill battle, given the Biblical data. See more below.
[E] I argued that “fruit of the vine” includes both wine and grape juice. This means using grape juice is consistent with using “fruit of the vine,” absent any evidence that the term necessarily excludes grape juice (conclusion 1). Furthermore, whereas a person who drinks grape juice might have a problem drinking wine, a person who has no problem drinking wine should have no problem drinking grape juice (conclusion 2, given conclusion 1). You might disagree with my premises, but I’m pretty sure I didn’t beg the question. This is why grape juice is the “lowest common denominator.”
[F] I had a feeling you wouldn’t like the LCD terminology. Perhaps all the instructions to maintain peace among the brethren is more apt here (e.g., Eph. 4:3). This is not peace at all costs, but peace within the confines of Christian liberty.
With respect to your closing comments: we have to be careful navigating the Biblical ethics of duty. I notice, for instance, that you talk about “good explicit instruction,” and yet in general seem to make your argument based on the example of what Jesus would have been drinking at the time. There seem to be two separate issues here. (1) We are commanded explicitly to drink the cup and eat the bread in remembrance of Him. You and I seem to be on the same page there. But (2), Why does it have to be wine, I might ask? Because that’s what Jesus, as an obedient Jew, would have drunk on Passover. I ask, Why can’t we drink grape juice instead? Because that was not what Jesus did. This makes the juice vs. wine argument appear to rest on Jesus’ example.
Back to the ethics of duty… Unlike propositional logic, which is bivalent (true/false), the deontic ethics of the Bible is trivalent (split three ways between obligatory, impermissible, and permissible or non-obligatory). The point is that if Jesus explicitly commands us to use wine, then the discussion is pretty much over. But that’s not what we have in the Biblical text, which is why I was questioning your use of “good explicit instruction.” Rather, your argument seems to be based on Jesus’ example, which is just fine by me. I strongly believe that we are obligated to emulate the example of Jesus and His apostles. However, arguments based on example are inductive, and thereby deliver only probabilistic conclusions. If we are to bind these conclusions on the church, then they better be strong arguments. In this case, to bind drinking of alcoholic wine on the church today we would need to make a really strong case that this is what Jesus meant when He said, “do this in remembrance of me.” So where does that put me in relation to God’s Word?
You admit that no one who uses grape juice is in “danger o[f] extreme disobedience,” which nonetheless implies that there is some lesser degree of disobedience and/or moral decrepitude (because wine would be “God’s best”). That’s a pretty strong contention. However, if we cannot prove that the use of wine is something to which we are obligated, or if we cannot prove that the use of grape juice is impermissible, then that leaves the use of both wine and grape juice in the realm of the non-obligatory or permissible. We cannot be judged praiseworthy or blameworthy to any degree while we are acting in this realm. (Of course, the use of “fruit of the vine” in observing the Lord’s supper on every First Day of the week remains firmly within the realm of the obligatory.) I hesitate to offer an analogy at this point, but the space for permissibility is something akin to the use of planes, trains and automobiles to carry out the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19). One could hardly accuse modern Christians of disobedience or not acting for “God best” because when we “Go!” but we elect not to use the sailing ships and animals that were available in Jesus’ day. It’s not a great analogy, but maybe you’ll see my point.
In sum,
There is neither express command, deductive inference, nor binding example which would obligate the use of alcoholic wine, or forbid the use of grape juice, in the communion. That’s my contention. I am waiting for the Biblical data that would show otherwise.
The use of non-alcoholic grape juice is consistent with the cup’s containing the “fruit of the vine.” This fact, taken together with #1, implies that the use of juice is permissible. If it is permissible, then it is subject neither to moral approval nor condemenation of any kind.
There are compelling reasons for the 21st century church to prefer grape juice over alcoholic wine in the observance of the communion.
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:49 pm
I want to read and consider before I make any substantive comments, but I just had to say thank you! You made may day. What a nice, thoughtful response. Disagreement without unpleasantness… ahhhh.
August 25th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
OK, T.J., I think this conversation is fantastic, but I’d like to slow it down and do smaller pieces, like we might while sitting down and having coffee. :)
A brief observation, then a question for our topic.
Observation: You noted that “[u]nlike propositional logic, which is bivalent (true/false), the deontic ethics of the Bible is trivalent (split three ways between obligatory, impermissible, and permissible or non-obligatory).” To be careful with language here, what you’re sharing as “trivalent” ethics is still subordinate to propositional logic.
For instance, something either is or isn’t an obligatory command. Or something permissible excludes that it’s impermissible.
To be honest, I do still like that structure for what it actually does (I think I read on Wikipedia that this trivalance is a distinctive or noteworthy feature of the Church of Christ?), but by deciding anything even fits into any of those categories, you will need “bivalent” logic. Even saying “one should use a trivalent perspective to make deontic ethical decisions” requires propositional logic to have any meaning. (If you disagree about that, comment on it alone and I’ll move that to a new post to keep this one on topic.)
OK, the question: Do you think Jesus used wine when instituting His Supper?
I’ll explain why I ask so there’s no feeling that I’m trying to trick you into anything. I think He did, likely diluted. If He did, that provides some information about His opinion concerning the use of wine. That does not make the argument from my perspective; it’s only a baby step. But it’s a good starting point.
And I hope you didn’t take my comment about begging the question as though I were using it in a derogatory sense; I’m not. I do still have to assert that, though (so far, anyway), even after reading and thinking about your comment to that end and here’s why.
If you and I are driving along and I say “to get around town, you really need wheels,” you and I will both understand that Ken’s just talking groovy talk and I mean you need a car to get around town. Now, it is correct that wheels could also mean a bicycle, rollerblades, or anything else with wheels, but the context plainly shows what I mean specifically, and interchanging “car” with another option doesn’t make sense.
So when you rightly suggest that “fruit of the vine” can mean juice, it doesn’t not then necessitate that any appearance of that phrase actually means any or all options in all cases. I grant it might in this case (though I’m sure you can see I’m skeptical). But from my perspective you need to flesh that out… I don’t think we can just assume it yet and move on.
Of course, I’m writing like you care to carry on the conversation. :)
If you don’t, no worries, you’ve already done yeoman’s work and in kind spirits, and thanks for that.
August 26th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
Ethics and Church Practice: Not the Baby Steps
That title should be followed by a 20-page essay, but this is your blog and I have intruded (and continue to intrude) too much already. The first part below clarifies something I said on deontic logic, and shouldn’t have. The second part responds to one of your statements about logic and ethics. The third part builds on the latter two parts by clarifying the relationship between deontic ethics and church practice, especially in the context of wine vs. grape juice.
(A) I’m pretty sure I was mistaken when I said that deontic logic is trivalent. Here I was confusing value with modality (that’s what I get for speaking off the top of my head — sorry). We usually assume that a proposition P can either be true or false. Deontic logic goes a giant step further by qualifying the proposition or norm in question. These qualifiers are called ‘modes,’ and typically there are three: obligation, permissibility, and impermissibility. These deontic modes are different from truth values. My bad; I’m a little rusty. These fine distinctions don’t normally come up in a Sunday morning Bible class!
(B) You said, “something either is or isn’t an obligatory command. Or something permissible excludes that it’s impermissible.” Sure. But remember that there are multiple modes, so if we have determined that a given action is nonobligatory, we haven’t nailed down yet whether it is forbidden or permissible. For instance, if it is not the case that I ought to go to Sally’s party (nonobligatory), does this mean I may go anyway (permissible), or does it mean that I may not go at all (forbidden)? We can probably answer that question; we just need more information.
(C) Your comment about the structure of obligations being unique to the Church of Christ makes me think you might have conflated two threesomes. One threesome has to do with the modalities of deontic ethics (see B above), and the other threesome has to do with the sources of obligation that govern church practice. Given the poor job I did (see A above), I don’t blame you for getting confused. So let’s look at these in turn and see how they relate.
You are right to think that propositional logic shouldn’t be left out in the cold. Rather than saying, though, that deontic logic is subordinate to propositional logic, it is better to say that deontic logic contains propositional logic. The whole reason for exploring the logic of duty is to extend rational thinking to notions such as permissibility, obligation, etc. — notions that propositional logic simply can’t handle. I’ll let you read more on this in the juicy and oh-so-breezy (not!) articles I reference below.
My point in bringing up deontic ethics is to make sure that we find the right label for drinking “fruit of the vine” vs. “wine” vs. “grape juice.” We agree (I think) that we are obligated to observe the communion, and to use fruit of the vine in our observance. But does that obligation extend to wine? That kind of question leads to the next point.
The formal terminology might sound foreign at first hearing, but a quick check of Scripture and common sense shows that it’s at least a good start in figuring out what God wants us to do, or not do, as the case may be. Some practices, I might add, are trapped by more than one filter (e.g., the communion is commanded directly by Jesus and Paul, and exemplified by the 1st Century church).
Any proposal that passes freely through all three filters is permissible. But not everything permissible is expedient. For instance, surely we are allowed to hold our worship services outdoors, but it’s often not conducive to church growth (at least, in most places in North America). And so we say further that an expedient practice is one that is both permissible and contributes to the edification of the church or the individual Christian (1 Cor. 6:12, 10:23). In our present discussion, I would argue that both wine and grape juice are permissible, but the latter is (more) expedient given prevailing social conditions.
More Reading:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-deontic/
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~msg6m/implogic.html
September 19th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
Wine vs. Grape Juice: The Baby Steps
KPM: Do you think Jesus used wine when instituting His Supper?
TJ: Yes.
[KPM: TJ posted this this back on Aug. 26th, but I wanted to leave it unapproved to remind me that it's here.]
September 19th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
Oh my. I thought I long ago responded to TJ’s longer comment of Aug 26th. Sheesh. YES, now that you’ve filled out what you mean about logic, it sounds good to me. I was wanting to make sure you weren’t hoping to have a trivalent “escape hatch” should the logic get too uncomfortable. (Nothing against you… it’s just a not-so-uncommon postmodern approach to accommodate incongruent arguments.)
OK, back to baby steps. So we agree that Jesus used wine when instituting His Supper. That seems to necessarily exclude argument wine is inherently wicked, so it seems we can (thankfully) leave those paths behind.
So now, another baby step… maybe two at a time. :)
He instituted this portion of His Supper as follows (Matt 26:27-29, ESV):
Three things strike me here. We agree that the cup he took contained (at least some) wine. And He said “Drink of it”. The antecedent for “it” is that cup which has wine in it. So at least in this case at this time what He actually offered was wine. (I’m going to drop repeatedly saying “at least some”… you already know what I mean, I think.)
And it seems that the church in the time covered by Scripture carried on the use of wine in that cup at least through 1 Cor. 11:20-22.
And it seems that wine continued to be used for centuries afterwards as simply the obvious thing to use since that’s what Jesus used.
So, my question is: am I being fair in those latter three statements? Does it seem to have been the legitimate prevailing opinion of Christianity throughout history that it’s just wine?
If they are reasonable assertions, I think that weeds out a lot of potentially distracting tangents, and lets us deal with what you’re bringing to the table, which I thought you nicely summed up with: