Poll on Supporting a New Church Plant

Maybe not. Like I said in an earlier post on this thread, my wife grew up an a rural Southern Baptist church about 60 miles from Louisville where they used wine. This was (is) a dry county. They always had a part time pastor who they would recruit from SBTS in Louisville. The pastor could easily purchase the wine in Louisville and bring it out to the church but all their pastors were afraid to do this. So they would always send their most senior deacon over to the next county, which was wet, to buy the wine. Most of the old people, including the deacon, are dead but I knew them well and they were all total abstainers. There was absolutely no controversy about this at all (except for the SBTS pastors who wouldn't buy the wine). However, none of them ever questioned the practice of using wine instead of grape juice.

I just asked my wife if she knew of this ever being a problem in the association and she said it was not. She thinks most of the small rural churches in the association use wine.

 

Was it legal to smuggle the alcohol into the country, and then to serve it?

Cheers,

Jim

 

Yes, this is quite common in Kentucky and completely legal. The law doesn't forbid consumption of alcohol in dry counties, it just forbids the sale.

 

I know a man who believed God had called him to be a missionary in Mexico and the convention he was with would not support him. He went and has been there about 40 years now. There were some churches that did support him but not the convention. He has done a great job and has built a great ministry in Mexico. If God opens the door then who can close it?

 

I looked up the laws, and I guess it depends on the state whether you can even pass through with or drink alcohol in that "dry area"...........quote" It is even illegal to bring alcohol through a dry county in Mississippi while traveling

Cheers,

Jim

 

If I remember right there was a time in the history of FBC Dallas that they had spittoons and drank communion wine from a common cup.

 

Interesting. In my county in KY, most of the Baptist churches were everything but SBC. Maybe that is the difference, I don't know. I know the IFB, ABC, Freewill Baptist, and Missionary Baptist churches didn't.

There are many issues that can cause a church not to financially support a church plant, though, not just the communion. Music styles, KJVO, headcovering, skirts-only, Calvinism, foot washing, yearly confidence votes, etc. can all be divisive issues, so we shouldn't be surprised.

 

To the best of my knowledge none of the churches in my association use wine. However, I know of several IFB churches around here that do. Since they're IFB there is not much fellowshipping with other churches so there is no one outside their congregation to complain or object.

 

I don't think it needs to be a divisive issue. We support churches overseas that use pretty stout liquor for communion.

I don't have a problem with supporting a church using wine in communion.

 

I think there are good arguments on both sides of this issue and, though I have a definite, strong opinion on the matter, I don't seek to force my opinion on others. I would not support the position being taken if I were a member. I would remain in that church if they continue with this position only if it were my only realistic option. However, I could support the church financially because I do think their position is within the bounds of their Christian liberty, though if I had another option of another church being planted, I would probably prefer it.

One thing does bother me deeply from this thread and that is the tone of the language with which this issue has been presented. A few samples of what I mean:
-Describing the view of those with whom you disagree as "man-made non-sense".

-Exaggerating your opponents position by saying "If it could be just the common "at hand" items, wonder bread & chocolate milk or pizza & pepsi would be appropriate today". I know of no one who thinks that alcohol is not OK for communion who thinks that chocolate milk or Pepsi is OK.

-Explaining the tee-total position as a recent invention and exclaiming
"We have been duped".

-Comparing those who do not feel in good conscience that they can support the church to semi-pelagians and KJVOnlyists.

In a controversial subject in which people of good motives and pure conscience disagree, this language is inappropriate. If I heard the new church plant voicing this kind of language as they disagree with me, I'd wonder why they even want my money. And if they feel that way about people of my persuasion, then they can procede on their own and perhaps their God will be big enough to prosper then without getting money from people whom they think are heretics.

 

I agree with you in that we need to major on the majors and minor on the minors and give grace to those who disagree. Personally I think it is healthy to see how godly Christians handle disagreement. It is not about our uniformity and conformity but unity among the people and conformity to Christ.

 

This is a good question to ask.

I find it odd that some Baptists get so worked up over something so silly. Aside from the reality that Christ made wine, real wine, out of water for His first miracle the NT clearly supports using wine in communion (I would not use the word mandates here...grape juice is fine by me.)

Maybe this is an issue of how, after doing theological triage, we come to a decision about support. It is a very good teachable moment.

I would suggest that it behooves an established church to support this kind of a younger church regardless of position on communion. That said if a church decides to withhold their support because of the communion issue, I would not condemn them nor suggest they are being overly dramatic.

Odd that some people can't just let something go. Who cares? Honestly the younger generation will look at this and roll their eyes. Then get castigated for not being legalistic enough. Its such an odd thing, to yell about this issue when there are so many more significant things out there that need our attention.

At some point we all differ on some issue. The important thing is to decide whether or not it is significant enough to break fellowship over. If this church were in our association or within our network of influence we would probably support them if everything is on the up and up as you have described. (We have a thorough review process for supporting other ministries) Winning the lost is more important than worrying about what they/we drink.

 

They already do. This year I have met two people in their thirties who have grown up and see the nonsense and have left those churches.

 

Actually, with pasteurization, today's grape juice is also unleavened, and if we are to remain pure to the elements, alcoholic wine would be used, not non alcoholic.

I don't have a problem either way if real wine is used, alcohol free wine or pasteurized juice. The symbolism lies in the purity of the drink (unleavened).

 

When the bottle is opened, airborne yeast contaminates the juice, and since the juice has sugar in it fermentation begins.

 

At one time my parents were grape growers and it is amazing the loks I get when I tell them that.

I agree with you 100%.

 

Tuomas Meriluoto wine blog:

winesandvines.com:

 

From what I read it seems that they remove the alcohol once it ferments.