American Christianity, the Sacraments,
& the Question of Abstinence
The question of using wine in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper has recently been raised. While most have no qualms about it one way or the other,[1] the objection is often raised that it is inappropriate because of the evils associated with alcohol, and the danger it poses to those with alcohol addictions. In fact, it is the tacit assumption of many that the use of non-alcoholic grape juice is a given – that the church has always used it, that it is adequate and that there is no reason for anything but it to be used, and that the suggestion that it be replaced by or supple-mented with wine amounts to nothing less than compromise on our part (sometimes with the hint that we are flirting with liberalism!).
My desire is to examine the question from both a Biblical and historical perspective so that we can discuss the issue rationally and with the mind of Christ, and that any decisions we make be informed decisions, not made on the basis of emotions or misinformation. Having addressed the Biblical/theological aspect of the question from the pulpit, I will confine myself in this paper to the historical dimension. In addition to the question What (if anything) does the Bible say about this? are questions like:
When and how did this issue arise?
What has the church had to say about it?
What should be our response?
This issue has to be understood in the larger context of historical developments as unfolded in the United States over the past two centuries.
For all the talk about America being a Christian nation, the reality is that from the very beginning there has been a drift from the vision of the founding fathers. There was, first, a shift from orthodoxy to heterodoxy in terms of theological convictions. But along with that was a corresponding shift from doctrinal to moralistic preaching and teaching in the church. In keeping with the moralistic emphasis in preaching was an increasing tendency to engage in, and advocate, moral crusades of varying sorts.
In the following material I will offer a large number of citations from several historical sources, including Sydney Ahlstrom (A Religious history of the American People), C. Greg Singer (A Theological Interpretation of American History), and George Marsden (The Evangelical Mind and the New School Presbyterian Experience). Others will be noted as they come up.
– Section One –
The move away from Theological Orthodoxy & Gospel Proclamation
to Theological Compromise & Moralistic Teaching & Preaching
Alexis de Tocqueville was a French diplomat, social scientist, and historian. In 1831 he traveled to the United States and recorded his reflections in his famous work, Democracy in America. His visit came at the height of the Second Great Awakening, when revivals were sweeping across the country. His first impression of America was its religious fervor. He writes:
“Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.”
As Maureen Riedy, of the University of Virginia, writes:
“This pronouncement resonates throughout the book, as Tocqueville repeatedly marveled at the number of American sects, at their mutual toleration, at the focus on morality almost to the exclusion of doctrine, which he felt together amounted to religious ‘indifference’. . . . With the turn of the nineteenth century the focus of American religion shifted from the doctrinal particulars of the various sects to the universal question of the moral character of the believer. Theology took a back seat to faith; the head was subordinated to the heart.” [2]
In de Tocqueville’s own words:
“The sects that exist in the United States are innumerable. They all differ in respect to the worship which is due to the Creator; but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due from man to man. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God. . . . Moreover, all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same.”
These observations are important because they reflect a shift that was taking place in American Christianity in that day. The colonial period was dominated by the Puritans, who were unapologetically Calvinistic in their theology. That is to say, they embraced historic, orthodox Christianity. But with the passing of time the Church shifted its focus from theological orthodoxy to a very compromised theological outlook, and to moralistic teaching and preaching. This was evidenced with the changes that contrast the first Great Awakening from those that followed.
The move away from orthodoxy is evident in a number of ways. Greg Singer writes of the profound influence of Deism in the colonies leading up to the American Revolution, constituting a revolt against the Puritan worldview – “a revolt against evangelical orthodoxy at practically every major point.”[3] That is to say, the seeds of heterodoxy were sown at a very early point in our nation’s history. As Singer observes, “Most of the revolutionary leaders desired to retain the Christian ethic, but to separate it from the biblical revelation and to find a new basis for it in natural law.” [p. 35] He goes on to relate how these ideas made their way into the church, and how the ‘seeds’ developed into full blown heresy.
As an example he cites Jonathan Mayhew in the West Church in Boston, who “applied rationalism to theology and, accordingly, not only modified such doctrines as predestination, but went much further than this in his insistence on the unity of God and the subordination of Christ to the Father.” In so doing, he continues, “he came very close to a Unitarian position.” Another notable example was Charles Chauncey of the First Church, Boston. He “carried on this revolt against evangelical theology” emphasizing the benevolence of God to the point of virtually teaching a doctrine of Universal Salvation. By 1776 unabashed Unitarianism was to be found, not only in Boston, but in varying degrees in all of the colonies.
But in time, the deism of the colonial period had run its course, and even the influence of Unitarianism began to wane. As our author observes, people began to react against the coldness of deism, and new movements emerged in its place. Even Unitarianism did not go unscathed. “The Unitarianism of the first half of the 19th century” he notes, “was not the same as that of the latter part of the 18th.” [p. 47] To fill the void there were two basic responses that stand out. On the one hand there were the “Awakenings” – centered especially on the frontier states (Ky., Tenn., western Pa.).[4] The other response was in Transcendentalism.[5] “Thus it was,” he continues, “in Transcendentalism, Unitarianism found a new ally, a new source of inspiration, and a new frame of reference which would enable it to outlive Deism, its original ally, and to gain new religious, political and social prominence in America.” [p. 48]
But the shift in beliefs that were widely held in America in the 19th century was followed by attempts to implement these beliefs in the social and political realm. Dr. Singer would go on to speak of the practical implications in the shift in theological outlook. I cite him at length.
“The vast distances which the Newtonian world view placed between God and His creation were replaced by the warm glow of a pantheistic conception of the universe: the universe in its totality is God. Such drastic changes in the inner spirit of Unitarianism as a religious and theological movement could only bring equally important changes in its political, social, and cultural outlook and goals. The belief in the inherent goodness of man and the possibility of human improvement, held by the earlier Unitarians, was brought into sharper focus by the pantheism inherent in the Transcendentalist philosophy. This optimism in regard to human nature, in turn, gave to Transcendentalism and the Unitarianism of the nineteenth century an unquenchable zeal for reform; the Unitarian leaders of the nineteenth century became leaders in almost every area of that reform movement which marked the middle decades of nineteenth century American history. Their penchant for reform can hardly be over-emphasized. There is little doubt that the alliance between Unitarian theology and Transcendentalism is one of the most important intellectual developments in American history, for it had profound implications on the political, social and economic history of America in that era which came to a close about 1865. The rise of the common man, the age of Jackson, the rise of the abolition movement, and the Southern reaction to these developments in the North, cannot be understood apart from their relationship to Transcendentalism, affecting, as it did, every aspect of American life.” [p. 49]
This leads to our next consideration.
– Section Two –
The Protestant Crusades [6]
As Dr. Singer remarked in the previously quoted passage, the underlying beliefs held by those embracing these ideas gave to them “an unquenchable zeal for reform.”
We should be quick (and the first) to say that “an unquenchable zeal for reform” is nothing less than laudable! A faith that is nothing more than an abstract belief system is far removed from the teaching of Scripture where saving faith is a living faith. The assertion of the lordship of Christ must be followed by action. There are ‘social implications’ to the Gospel that cannot be ignored. Believing leads to doing. And the ‘doing’ involves more than application at a personal level. The sovereignty of Christ is not merely a personal, individualistic reality, but one that has public ramifications.
That notwithstanding, much of the motivation behind the crusades of the 19th and early 20th century was predicated on some really bad theology. It was, as Singer related, beliefs like the inherent goodness of man and the possibility of human improvement that gave these movements “an unquenchable zeal for reform”.
Singer would return to this contention later in his book. This theology, he would write . . .
“almost inevitably led to a view that man also has both the power and the mandate to make a heaven out of this earth and to transform it into a kind of Garden of Eden. Thus Finney, and many other leaders of that era, were easily persuaded that part of the task of evangelism was a direct attack on the social evils of the day . . . . It was, therefore, not only not difficult, but natural that the leaders of these theological movements should be swept into the currents of Jacksonian reform movements, that they should embrace the cause of abolition, world peace, the movement for the equality for women, and the many other crusades which called for their loyalty. But because of their optimistic and sub-biblical view of human nature, they failed to take the problem of sin as seriously as the Bible presents it. Thus, they redefined evangelism as a means of promoting Christian action in the social and economic areas of life and they were guilty of identifying support of such causes as evidence of regeneration and sanctification.” p. 149
A number of factors contributed to this trend. George Marsden cites the disestablishment of American churches as being one.[7]
“In America, the evangelicals who generated this fervor were indelibly impressed with one lesson learned from the eighteenth-century religious and political experience: if the church or any other group were to influence American society, it must depend, not on imposed authority (or state support), but rather on the voluntary response of the people. This lesson was reinforced by the disestablishment of the American churches.”
The result of this was the principle known as the ‘voluntary principle’. In the words of Lyman Beecher, the churches increased their influence by relying on their own resources and on God, by voluntary efforts, societies, missions, and revivals. [p. 12/13]
In keeping with the spirit of voluntaryism, revivals were perceived as instruments of bringing social change. Evangelicals in the early 19th century saw the Great Awakening of the 1730s and 1740s as a lost ‘golden age’ that needed to be relived, and “manifestations of the new awaken-ing emerged again in 1807-08 and then reappeared with great regularity in four-or-five-year cycles until the 1830s.” [p.13] Along with these were the organization of missionary societies, “and within the next two decades (1820s & 30s) evangelicals founded literally hundreds of local or national voluntary societies.” [p. 15] As Marsden adds, “almost every form of vice or oppression had a corresponding moral or benevolent society to stamp it out.”
“By the 1830s this ‘benevolent empire’ included not only societies for major reforms, as the American colonization society, the American Anti-Slavery Society, the American Temperance Society, and the American Peace Society, but also organizations dedicated to less well-known good causes, as the Seventh Commandment Society, the New York Anti-Tobacco Society, the American Seamen’s Friend Society, the Protestant Half Orphan Asylum Society, and the Society for the Encouragement of Faithful Domestic Servants in New York. In 1826 the six most prosperous agencies were the American Education Society; the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions; the American Home Missionary Society; the American Bible Society; the American Sunday-School Union; and the American Tract Society. The combined budgets of these major evangelical organizations easily rivaled the major expenditures of the federal government, and in some respects their influence seemed as great.” [p. 15/16]
“Moralism, as much as revivalism, typified the evangelical mentality of the day.” Citing author Charles Foster, the Evangelical united front had brought about “the rise of American Victorianism.” These various moral movements provided a sense of unity among evangelical Christians, “and for a time it even appeared as though the united voluntary societies might provide an alternative to denominationalism in America.” [p. 18]
Sydney Ahlstrom also calls attention to a variety of ‘non-military crusades’ against the forces of evil that were launched in antebellum America, and how – being driven with a sense of lost momentum due to the war and reconstruction – these were reenergized in the decades following the War, “with Onward Christian Soldiers and the battle Hymn of the Republic setting the cadence.” [8]
In the 20th century the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy fractured much of the (perceived) unity that existed among American Christians. As Dr. Singer notes, between 1919 and 1932 there is a clearly discernable leftward drift in the public pronouncements of many of the larger denominations, but especially of the more outspoken ministers. [p. 220] The role of missions was itself colored by this controversy, with the result that the ‘social gospel’ essentially replaced the ‘evangelical’ gospel in the efforts of many churches.
And so a study of American Church History reveals a decline in theological orthodoxy within American Christianity, but also an increasing tendency to make preaching more moralistic and less theological. It also reveals a tendency for American Christians to “jump on the bandwagon” of many moral crusades, regardless of their motivation or leadership.
But it is the temperance movement that is of particular interest to us at present.
Sydney Ahlstrom suggests that the temperance movement hit America in three waves: [9]
The First Wave occurred during the Antebellum era.
George Marsden calls attention to the fact that in this early stage those advocating temperance were moderate in their designs: “they attacked only the manufacture and use of ‘ardent spirits’, meaning distilled liquors such as rum and whiskey, but not wine, beer, and hard cider, which seemed to have been daily fare for most American families.” [p. 24] But by the mid-1820s the temperance movement, “nursed by revivalism,” began to advocate for total abstinence from all alcoholic beverages. “The shift toward total abstinence was particularly remarkable,” Marsden notes, “in that unlike almost every other evangelical reform this principle lacked Biblical example, the Bible and Christ himself providing precedents to the contrary.”
Going beyond advocacy through rational persuasion, an additional incentive was added to “sweeten the pot”. This came from businessman Arthur Tappan, of New York City. Under the American Home Missionary Society, Presbyterian congregations (primarily ‘New School’ Presby-terians), would receive twenty-five dollars each for adopting the abstinence principle as a condition of membership. [10]
In addition to abstinence, Tappan also advocated frequent communion. Noting the inevitable conflict between total abstinence and frequent partaking of the Lord’s Supper, a critic penned the following:
“Arthur Tappan, Arthur Tappan
Suppose it should happen –
Mind, I’m only supposing it should –
That some folks in the Union,
Should take your communion
Too often by far for their good.”
Again, it was almost inevitable that in time someone would come to the conclusion that if abstinence is to be total, that would mean that changes would have to be made with respect to the sacrament itself. And in the early 1830s a formidable campaign was launched, sponsored by the prominently New School Presbyterian paper, the New York Evangelist, urging the substitution of grape juice for wine in the communion service. [11]
In terms of legislation, the Maine (liquor) Law was enacted in 1851. It was one of the first statutory restrictions brought about by the temperance movement in the United States. By 1855 twelve states had joined Maine in total prohibition, but by war’s end, Maine alone remained ‘dry’.
The second phase identified by Ahlstrom revolved around the work of crusading women. [12]
It began on the 24th of December, 1873, when Eliza Trimble Thompson of Hillsboro, Ohio “led more than seventy determined women (followed by hundreds of townspeople) from a prayer meeting to one of the town’s liquor vendors.”[13] The following year saw the formation of the WCTU (Women’s Christian Temperance Union).
“With the WCTU functioning as a women’s auxiliary, the league was marvelously successful in giving direction and power to a rising tide of temperance sentiment in the nation. Yet from the start it functioned as a semi-ecclesiastical movement.” [14]
The third phase was largely associated with the Anti-Saloon League.
This organization was formed in Oberlin, Ohio in 1893. The league was well financed by men of considerable means, S. S. Kresge being one of its most generous patrons. It invested tens of millions of dollars in promoting temperance. In 1913 it launched a campaign for an amend-ment to constitution, which came to fruition on January 16, 1919 with ratification of the 18th amendment. It is instructive to consider who was involved in this movement and what motivated them.
First of all, the Anti-Saloon League was described by Ahlstrom as “a church-oriented direct action political pressure organization,” described by one individual as “the churches (and the ‘decent people’) organized against the saloon.” [p. 350/1] To be more precise, it was Method-ism that provided “unanimous institutional support and supplied most of its most militant leadership.” But others joined with them, including the Baptist and Presbyterians. It was, as Ahlstron suggests, “basically the last great corporate work in America of legalistic evangelical-ism.” [352]
“From the start it functioned as a semi-ecclesiastical movement. … With the exception of German Lutherans and Episcopalians, American Protestantism constituted an unprecedentedly solid phalanx that included evangelicals and liberals, Social Gospelers and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. … the dry cause (was) ‘a surrogate for the Social Gospel.’ The gaining and maintaining of Prohibition became the crusade and the panacea for a whole generation of Protestants.” [388/9]
Motivation for support for the amendment varied considerably. Some were concerned with the physical health of those who imbibed. For some the financial / business dimension provided an incentive, S. S. Kresge being motivated largely with concern for efficient labor force. Others had nationalistic concerns, with strong anti-foreign sentiment fueling their involvement: “After war was declared against the Kaiser, anti-German sentiments could be marshalled for a final assault on the ‘Beer Barons’.” [15]
That, however, there was also a religious motivation could not be denied. The concern for national righteousness was a genuine concern for many. Lyman Beecher would assert that “Intemperance is the sin of our land . . . and if anything shall defeat the hopes of the world, it is that river of fire.” [16] The temperance movement united professing Christians (and others) more than any other movement of the day. Ahlstrom would observe that in no previous crusade had the solidarity of Protestantism been so unbroken as with Temperance.
But what is instructive is who was not in the forefront of the movement. Dr. Singer brings this out when he writes that
“. . . the prohibition issue had been vigorously pushed by the religious and political radicals during the first half of the nineteenth century and, historically, it had not been a part of the conservative outlook and program. Many sincere evangelicals felt the vast powers conferred on the central government by the eighteenth amendment constituted a greater threat to Christianity than the liquor trade that was to be outlawed. Organs of liberal opinion, like the Christian Century, were often ardent champions of national prohibition, and they took a dim view of Roosevelt’s support of repeal. Conservative publications, on the other hand, did not look on repeal with the same disfavor as their liberal counterparts, because of their view of the problem – being in the inherent sinfulness of man, not in the liquor trade itself.” [17]
In fact, not only were those committed to historic orthodoxy (as reflected in the Reformed faith) not in the vanguard of the movement, they often distanced themselves from it, and sometimes drew criticism for it. Case in point: J. Gresham Machen. When, in a meeting of presbytery in 1926, a resolution was introduced endorsing the 18th amendment, he voted ‘no’. Much was made of this “and it was interpreted as indicating that he had a loose and evil attitude toward temperance and even drunkenness itself.” In fact,
“throughout the rest of Machen’s life, and indeed for many years afterward, credence has been widely given to outright falsehoods concerning his attitude toward intoxicating beverages. They sometimes took the form that he was a ‘wet’ and even a drunkard. Most frequently it was stated that the Machen money was made in the brewery business and that he continued to depend on that source for his income. Such reports . . . were being spread by one of the leading clergymen of the denomination as a basic reason why Machen had to be opposed. Graduates of Westminster Seminary have frequently encountered such charges . . . .” [18]
In his later conflicts with the church this issue would resurface.
Conclusion
From the perspective of Biblical ethics, responsible consumption of alcohol is a matter of conscience. It fits into the category of ‘things indifferent’. Further, the use of wine in the sacrament is a matter of historic reality, unchallenged until the rise of the Temperance Movement in the 19th century. Seen in the larger context of American history, that movement reflects the compromised and worldly mindset that came to dominate the church in that era, and like the evangelical church today, it was exploited by elements of the world to advance its own agenda.
With respect to the question of conscience, the matter is not as simple as might first be imagined, specifically with regard to the question of wine in communion. Out of love for our brother (or sister), we should be willing to make accommodations. This is the ethic set forth in I Corinthians eight. But there are, in point of fact, two factions whose consciences need to be appeased. In addition to those who perceive alcohol as an evil/danger to be avoided, there are those who, out of theological convictions (appealing to the Regulative Principle), see anything but wine as a violation of Biblical teaching. Both of these are motivated by genuine convictions of conscience.
What should be our response?
First – the Bible is normative, not our personal feelings, tradition, culture, or even historic precedent. If conscience is a consideration, it should be a Biblically-informed conscience. What does the Bible say about the sacrament itself?
The answer is, seemingly, clear. There are two elements set forth in Scripture by both precept and precedent: bread and wine, the preponderance of evidence being that it is fermented wine, but with the understanding that the nature of the juice and the nature of the bread is ultimately inconsequential.
This in and of itself should be sufficient. But given the heated nature of the debate, compromise does not seem out of order. The most reasonable solution would be to make both, grape juice and wine, available for those partaking of the sacrament. This has been done in numerous churches today, and has seemingly met with favorable response.
Hopefully the above material will shed light on a subject that has been largely shrouded in darkness.
Joseph Donahue
Soli Deo gloria
NOTES
1 Most see this as an example of adiaphora – “things indifferent”, along the lines of eating meat that has been offered to idols.
2 Maureen Riedy: “Religion in America: 1820-1840” http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/religion/intro.html
3 Greg Singer, A Theological interpretation of American History, p. 24
George Marsden emphasized the influence of Scottish Common Sense Philosophy, first introduced to America by John Witherspoon at Princeton in 1768, and which became dominant in academic circles by the third decade of the 19th century, “particularly among Evangelicals.” p. 47/8
4 There were similar awakenings in the east with Timothy Dwight (Yale) its greatest exponent. But “this evangelical answer to 18th ct. deism never carried as much weight in New England . . . .”
5 In the words of Sydney Ahlstrom, “Since the romantic Gospel was in one sense a specific prescription for the spiritual paralysis brought on by a diet of common-sense rationalism, the corpse-cold Unitarianism of Boston and Harvard College (Emerson’s epithet) was soon experiencing a Transcendental awakening.” A Religious History of the American People, Vol. 2 p. 34
6 Sydney Ahlstrom titled one of his chapters “Crusading Protestantism” in which he likened many of the efforts for social reform in 19th century America to the Great Crusades of the Middle Ages.
7 George Marsden, The Evangelical Mind and the New School Presbyterian Experience, p. 12
8 Ahlstrom, p. 335
9 Pp. 347-350f.10 Marsden, p. 26
11 Marsden, p. 27 Teetotalism was one of the issues distinguishing the New School from the Old School Presbyterians.
12 In speaking of developments after Civil War, Ahlstrom would call to our attention that “evangelicalism was no longer calling the tune – or more accurately, that fewer people were heeding the call.” In point of fact, the Protestant Establishment was being threatened. p. 189
13 Ahlstrom p. 34714 The name of Frances Willard is most closely identified with this phase of activity.
15 Ahlstrom, p. 389. According to Ahlstrom, WW I was a bonanza for the Temperance movement, “giving nativists a rationale for harassing the German brewers.” After the U.S. entered the war there was stress on saving fuel (alcohol) and using grain for bread. He cites fears over foreign influence, with lecturer and author Alphonso Hopkins asserting that . . .
“We are a Christian people, with morality at the center of our civilization. Foreign control or conquest is rapidly making us un-Christian, with immorality throned in power. Besodden Europe sends here her drink-makers, her drunkard-makers, and her drunkards . . . with all their un-American and anti-American ideas of morality and government. . . . As one feature of foreign conquest, foreign capital has come here, and to the extent that untold millions has invested itself in breweries . . . $25,000,000 yearly sent over-seas to foreign stockholders, who shared thus in their conquest of America, while to them in their palaces and castles American labor paid tribute . . . .” p. 351-5216 See Marsden, p. 21f., 24
17 Theological Interpretation, p. 221
18 Ned B. Stonehouse, J. Gresham Machen: A Biographical Memoir., p. 387f., 391