Calvin says it is a thing indifferent whether we use red or white wine in the Lord's Supper, which should be left to the church's discretion (Institutes IV.XVII.43, p1420).
I wonder if anyone has ever actually advocated using white wine?
The symbolism of red, the colour of blood, seems so natural and obvious that it would be a shame to miss it.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
I worked at a church once where the wardens, with an eye on the budget, bought white sherry in bulk. And that is what we had.
Deut 32:14: "the blood of the grape." A chardonnay would be pretty anaemic blood!
So was white wine produced in biblical times? Floating around my head is some kind of quarter-remembered suspicion that wine-makers didn't think to remove the skins till later. There's a PhD!
sorry, last comment sounded like complete chronological snobbery "didn't think to remove the skins"! I'm ashamed.
Of course if they did have white wine, maybe Rev 7:14 is more straight-forward than we'd thought!
So is having wine more important than having red coloured drink. Where would Calvin have been on the grape juice/ribena debate?
I think it's pretty clear that Calvin, along with all good reformed thinkers, would have considered Ribena anathema. When use at the sacrament, obviously. At a children's tea party it's perfectly acceptable.
Ros,
But why -if white is okay. What is it that makes wine matter?
Well, wine evokes all kinds of biblical imagery that Ribena doesn't. Get a concordance and look it up! Wine is the produce of the kingdom, a symbol of the promised land, a sign of judgment and also of prosperity. Wine matters, like bread matters. Tea and biscuits are not the same, because they don't mean the same thing. Ribena and wafers, likewise.
And, Dave, I don't think white is okay. Certainly not good. But better than nothing. The point isn't 'what can we get away with to still make the magic work' but 'what will best represent the fullness of the sacrament to the people'. And for that, wine, and specifically red wine, is needed.
Ros,
I was really trying to stick with where Calvin's logic took us on that question.
I think you are right to talk in terms of what best represents the fulness of the sacrament. Certainly we shouldn't be in the what can I get away with to make the magic work mode.
But maybe we should assume good faith on the people involved? After all, there is the risk that we become literalists on those points that suit us. Are silver chalices helpful...should we baptise in fonts or baptistries or flowing rivers...
It certainly isn't helpful to throw language like "tea and biscuits" "children's tea parties" etc around any more than it is to accuse some very faithful Christians of "Gospel denial" because they stuck the wrong substance in the chalice.
Dave, I wasn't trying to be flippant with the 'children's tea party'/'tea and biscuits' references. My point was that there is an appropriateness associated with different foods at different meals.
And yes, I do think that people make substitutes in good faith and that the sacrament can still be effective when they do so.
But I don't think Calvin would have been recommending it.
On which presumably we would say -there are better things to use and inappropriate things to use. So red wine definately, if you want a non alcohol option -no alcoholic wine, grape juice etc fine, ribena -if you must -but not the best, orange juice probably not.
Then what is the most important aspect of the food there -is it to remind us of Christ's blood -so the priority is something red or is the most important thing that we pick up on the imagery that Ros mentions -in which case we need to go down the grape/wine route but colour may not matter.
Post a Comment