Prohibition and the Lord's Supper

Status
Not open for further replies.

O'GodHowGreatThouArt

Puritan Board Sophomore
Evening all.

I was wondering how the churches handled administering the Lord's Supper when there was no wine in the country that they could legally obtain. Did they obtain the wine from underground sources, or were there other means?

If they chose not to use wine, was there any need to justify it biblically (since it was instituted with wine)?

Thanks in advance.
 
Nevermind, I thought you where talking about foreign prohibitions.
 
Last edited:
During prohibition, wine was available for sacramental and medicinal use. There was significant abuse of both exceptions. Prescriptions were needed for medicinal use, and permits were required for sacramental use. Permits were good for one year.

Note that the 18th Amendment prohibited manufacturing, sale, transportation, import or export of alcohol "for beverage purposes"

See also the Volstead Act Volstead Act- 1920
 
Also to keep in mind many Christians and churches were the ones spearheading prohibition.
 
That's when Mr. Welch came up with his grape juice.

Really? That would be hilarious if it was.

To be clear, Welch came up with his pasteurization method at the end of the 19th century, before Prohibition. But he was motivated by the temperance movement and wanted a non-alcoholic alternative to wine for the sacrament.

One reason why he wanted the alternative was because he was a Methodist, and their position against alcohol.
 
On a related note, today the states allow minors to consume alcohol for religious purposes.
 
That's when Mr. Welch came up with his grape juice.

Really? That would be hilarious if it was.

To be clear, Welch came up with his pasteurization method at the end of the 19th century, before Prohibition. But he was motivated by the temperance movement and wanted a non-alcoholic alternative to wine for the sacrament.

One reason why he wanted the alternative was because he was a Methodist, and their position against alcohol.

That's true. But as I understand it, basically all professing Christian groups with the exception of Lutherans and Catholics were largely on board with temperance and in many cases, prohibition itself. (I don't know what the position of the Dutch Reformed was.)

Prohibition was something that the liberals/modernists and the fundamentalists in the Presbyterian church agreed upon. It was the confessionalists of the type that remained at Westminster Seminary after the Orthodox Presbyterian/Bible Presbyterian split ca. 1938 who were of the moderation party, and they represented a minority view at that time, at least outside of the OPC. And a good many of them were not from the USA e.g. Van Til, Murray. This "foreign" influence was noted by Allan MacRae, among others. There were still men in the OPC who favored opposing the "liquor trade" into the 1940's, but I understand most of them left after the Clark/Van Til controversy.

The RPCNA had a prohibitionist stance until comparatively recently. I know a former RPCNA minister who had to leave in the 1970's because he would not discipline a couple who were known to imbibe.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top