Poll on Supporting a New Church Plant

Please explain...

Thanks
HankD

 

The context was not that I believe it is immoral. The context is that a church that does find it immoral (against scripture) would not obviously support a church plant that practiced consuming alcohol lest they be inconsistent or hypocritical.

 

Your post is inaccurate becuase a number of wineries DO NOT ADD YEAST to the wine when they make it. Yeast are naturally on the hulls of the grape and are in the grape juice. Pastuerization kills the yeasts, but like leavned bread, they are left hanging around in the liquid. Both grape juice and leavened bread have dead yeasts still there.

In contrast, during the fermentation process the yeasts actually fall out of the liquid. When the wine is taken out, the yeasts are left behind. The residual is called cream of tartar. It is a leavening agent made from the leaven that is expelled from the liquid during fermentation.

Modern wineries that do not add yeasts when making wine:

Coturri vineyards states on their website explicitly:
"The "must" goes into classic, open fermentation tanks which are instantly covered with clean white sheets. The caps (floating grape skins) are pushed periodically by hand. The 1 ton straight-sided redwood tanks will ferment for a week to ten days. At Coturri Winery we use the natural yeast's living on the grape skins to turn the sugars into CO2 and alcohol."

There is a whole catergory of winemaking called natural wines.

Here is a link to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_wine

When our communion wine is made, NO YEASTS ARE ADDED.

When people use juice, there are imbibing the little dead yeasts that are locked into the liquid during the process of pastuerization. That is why juice and leavened bread molds, but wine and unleavened bread does not.

I am not sure that the Bible demands an unleavened drink, but I know that only wine is unleavened. I further know that obedience to the Lord in His ordinance requires that I use what He used - real, naturally fermented wine. Since wineries make it, I do not have to make my own.

 

I thought you said nothing is taken away?

 

OK, I'm sorry. I misunderstood.

Thanks
HankD

 

Me too. :type:

 

Such a petty issue - the individual church body should use whatever they feel comfortable with.

I wouldn't even think to ask what a church uses for communion when deciding whether to support them.

Ask for our opinion when you have a more important biblically based church issue - like the color of the curtains and rugs.

Rob

 

I should have clarified better. Nothing is taken away until after the process is finsihed. Then, the liquid element is removed, leaving the yeasts behind- creating an unleavened cup.

Doing what Jesus did exatly as he did it is not a petty issue. We are commanded to drink from "this cup," not invent our own.

Besides, I am not asking any church to change, only if anyone knew of an IFB church that agrees with doing this the scriptural way to let me know their number so I can see if someone could come here to help with a church plant (or preach in view of a call at some churches looking for pastors).

 

Do you think the dead yeast is the same as the tartar?


The winery you quoted from says:

http://www.coturriwinery.com/winemaking.html

"Around 5,000 cases a year are produced at the Coturri Winery. The wines are not filtered or fined and we recommend decanting to avoid sediment."

Do you think the sediment perhaps contains some dead yeast particulates—after all, they make a point of their wine not being filtered.

 

Nope, yeasts are white when they settle. The sediment is not. The sediment come from pieces of the hulls that are still in the juice. I wish I had pictures from when I make my own wine. Perhaps I should make some this year and explain the process. It really is a beautiful picture that connects well with the gospel and the biblical narrative.

In many ways, the making of wine is analogous to the gospel itself. Christ was crushed for our sins, buried, and rose again on the third day to bring justification. Juice, to me, pictures a Christ that is still on the cross, but that is my personal theology, and can not directly be found in the scripture.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

My personal opinion is that wine should be used in communion though neither of the churches to which I have belonged used wine. The church mentioned in the op met the needs of the weaker members by providing a non alcohol substitute.

The pastor of one church years ago commented that the four cardinal sins according to Southern Baptist were drinkin, dancin, smokin, and cussin! Now I don't drink, can't dance, never smoked [tried a pipe, burnt my tongue], and got a whippin if I cussed but, other than taking the Lords Name in vain, there are worse things. It seems that the startup church of the OP dwells in the midst of these folks. [ I should mention that the pastor above was a teetotaler, didn't even approve wine vinegar. Not a preacher but a great pastor.]

I don't really know how the churches in the county Baptist Association would respond. I believe there is a lot of hypocrisy among churches and Christians. There are many things churches do that I believe are far far worse than serving wine at communion [as was served at the first communion].

The following is a true story. I have a niece [great] who worked as a waitress during her college years. One of the grande' ladies who always ate Sunday dinner after church dumped on the waitresses because they did not go to church. Is that hypocritical or not? Many people have to work on Sunday because "Christians" demand it.