Christian alcoholics

[painkiller]

After 19 years solid drinking I have been sober a good while and don't intend to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] it up now. Trouble is, so many churches don't have an alternative to alcoholic wine so folk like me who want to take communion have to reject the wine. I have a chat with God before I go up to the rail and explain why I don't drink the wine, I'm confident he understands, but there must be many recovering alcoholics who are greatly troubled by the communion challenge (ie. feeling bad about not supping from the cup or worse, taking a sip and that being the catalyst to end their sobriety, believe me it's that easy). How does your church deal with this issue please?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

The idea of being labeled an 'alcoholic' after having quit and recovered is unbiblical. The irony is that it's something that was originally motioned by a Christian-based service in the first place.

But the Bible teaches that such afflictions are taken away altogether upon the renewal of the soul. Although drinking even once can lead right back into alcoholism full swing, I also believe that the idea of remaining of being labeled a 'recovered alcoholic' produces a stigma in which even, in this instance, taking communion is something to fear.
Which is another great irony- that a proposed sacrament would lead one into sin.

Apparently, I'm not alone on the matter, as there's a discipleship for the afflicted downtown in my city who speaks this right in their extended mission statement. As if to one-up AA.

 

[painkiller]

We never ever refer to ourselves as recovered alcoholics. Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic. We refer to ourselves as recovering alcoholics and there is a difference (ie. I'm not being pedantic). If you say you're recovered then complacency sneaks in and you start to think just one drink or taste will be ok. That's why I don't have wine at communion, one taste and I'd likely be in the pub before Sunday lunch!

I have to say I struggle with your reply because it begins to suggest Christian alcoholics don't have sufficient faith. If I were a diabetic would you also suggest the 'renewal of my soul' meant I needn't take insulin? I'm cool with not taking wine at communion if no substitute is available but equally feel blessed when churches do take the trouble to provide an alternative.

All that said, I'm Anglican and would be intrigued in a Catholic's take on this subject given the issue of transubstantiation. (I also wonder if God weeps when seeing people like me get all legalistic on stuff like this, perhaps I'm some kind of 'Pharisee-lite'!)

 

[dayhiker]

We have grape juice at my church, so no problem for alcoholics.

 

[Catherineanne]

After 19 years solid drinking I have been sober a good while and don't intend to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] it up now. Trouble is, so many churches don't have an alternative to alcoholic wine so folk like me who want to take communion have to reject the wine. I have a chat with God before I go up to the rail and explain why I don't drink the wine, I'm confident he understands, but there must be many recovering alcoholics who are greatly troubled by the communion challenge (ie. feeling bad about not supping from the cup or worse, taking a sip and that being the catalyst to end their sobriety, believe me it's that easy). How does your church deal with this issue please?

In the Anglican communion both elements count as the Body and Blood, so either one counts as full communion. Simply slip back to your seat after receiving the host, and don't worry about it. Chances are nobody will notice.

If your priest is particularly caring he may well say, 'The Body and Blood of Christ' when he gives you the host. This is perfectly in accord with Anglican teaching, and he may do this if he realises your struggles. It might be worth a quiet word, just for this reason.

 

[Catherineanne]

The idea of being labeled an 'alcoholic' after having quit and recovered is unbiblical. The irony is that it's something that was originally motioned by a Christian-based service in the first place.

But the Bible teaches that such afflictions are taken away altogether upon the renewal of the soul. Although drinking even once can lead right back into alcoholism full swing, I also believe that the idea of remaining of being labeled a 'recovered alcoholic' produces a stigma in which even, in this instance, taking communion is something to fear.
Which is another great irony- that a proposed sacrament would lead one into sin.

Apparently, I'm not alone on the matter, as there's a discipleship for the afflicted downtown in my city who speaks this right in their extended mission statement. As if to one-up AA.

I think your knowledge of alcoholism leaves something to be desired.

 

[Catherineanne]

We never ever refer to ourselves as recovered alcoholics. Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic. We refer to ourselves as recovering alcoholics and there is a difference (ie. I'm not being pedantic). If you say you're recovered then complacency sneaks in and you start to think just one drink or taste will be ok. That's why I don't have wine at communion, one taste and I'd likely be in the pub before Sunday lunch!

I have to say I struggle with your reply because it begins to suggest Christian alcoholics don't have sufficient faith. If I were a diabetic would you also suggest the 'renewal of my soul' meant I needn't take insulin? I'm cool with not taking wine at communion if no substitute is available but equally feel blessed when churches do take the trouble to provide an alternative.

All that said, I'm Anglican and would be intrigued in a Catholic's take on this subject given the issue of transubstantiation. (I also wonder if God weeps when seeing people like me get all legalistic on stuff like this, perhaps I'm some kind of 'Pharisee-lite'!)

Catholics very often take in one kind only; it is becoming more common for them to take in both kinds, but there are still many who will not. Very often the norm is for them to take only the Host.

If I saw someone like yourself take the Host but not take the wine I would not immediately think 'alcoholic.' I would think 'Catholic.'

I hope that helps.

 

[ViaCrucis]

After 19 years solid drinking I have been sober a good while and don't intend to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] it up now. Trouble is, so many churches don't have an alternative to alcoholic wine so folk like me who want to take communion have to reject the wine. I have a chat with God before I go up to the rail and explain why I don't drink the wine, I'm confident he understands, but there must be many recovering alcoholics who are greatly troubled by the communion challenge (ie. feeling bad about not supping from the cup or worse, taking a sip and that being the catalyst to end their sobriety, believe me it's that easy). How does your church deal with this issue please?

My church (ELCA) provides both wine and grape juice precisely for reasons such as this (for people who can't have alcohol for one reason or another). The common cup is always wine, but we provide the option of wine and grape juice for use for intinction (dipping the bread); at my former church (also ELCA) individual cups were provided that had either wine or grape juice for those who, for whatever reason, couldn't or had issues with the common cup.

We also have gluten-free hosts for those who suffer from Celiac's Disease or other forms of gluten intolerance.

Lots of churches recognize that there are medical reasons why traditional wine and bread can't be consumed by the Faithful and so meets those needs while offering the spiritual needs as well. No Christian should have to forfeit the Lord's Table because of a medical condition.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

In the Anglican communion both elements count as the Body and Blood, so either one counts as full communion. Simply slip back to your seat after receiving the host, and don't worry about it. Chances are nobody will notice.

If your priest is particularly caring he may well say, 'The Body and Blood of Christ' when he gives you the host. This is perfectly in accord with Anglican teaching, and he may do this if he realises your struggles. It might be worth a quiet word, just for this reason.

As a Lutheran one of the big issues the Lutheran Reformers tackled was that both kinds were withheld from the Faithful, only the clergy received the Cup of the Lord's Supper. Our Confessions, in no uncertain terms, regard this as a terrible abuse against the Lord's Sacrament and against His Church. Which is why we insisted so strongly on the Eucharist in both kinds.

That said, there are many Lutherans who would understand the prohibition against Communion in one kind as addressing those abuses from back then, and is therefore a case of in statu confessionis, "in a state of confession". Where under preferable circumstances a particular practice or another may not in themselves be matters of necessity to true faith, there are times when one must make a stand on a particular side in order to assert true faith against falsehood. If we permit the prohibition against one kind and the insistence of both kinds to be an example of in statu confessionis (and I would imagine many Lutherans might or will disagree, I'm really not sure) then it isn't receiving in one kind itself that is actually the problem, it is the insistence of receiving in one kind that is the problem and thus, in a state of confession, insisting on receiving in both kinds.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Catherineanne]

As a Lutheran one of the big issues the Lutheran Reformers tackled was that both kinds were withheld from the Faithful, only the clergy received the Cup of the Lord's Supper. Our Confessions, in no uncertain terms, regard this as a terrible abuse against the Lord's Sacrament and against His Church. Which is why we insisted so strongly on the Eucharist in both kinds.

In the context of the 16th Century, that is understandable.

That said, there are many Lutherans who would understand the prohibition against Communion in one kind as addressing those abuses from back then, and is therefore a case of in statu confessionis, "in a state of confession". Where under preferable circumstances a particular practice or another may not in themselves be matters of necessity to true faith, there are times when one must make a stand on a particular side in order to assert true faith against falsehood. If we permit the prohibition against one kind and the insistence of both kinds to be an example of in statu confessionis (and I would imagine many Lutherans might or will disagree, I'm really not sure) then it isn't receiving in one kind itself that is actually the problem, it is the insistence of receiving in one kind that is the problem and thus, in a state of confession, insisting on receiving in both kinds.

-CryptoLutheran

I will take your word for all of that;I am not familiar enough with Lutheran thinking.

From an Anglican pov, either element constitutes full communion, so people have the freedom to take only one if circumstances make that necessary. The norm is certainly both, but it is not an absolute necessity.

 

[riesie]

After 19 years solid drinking I have been sober a good while and don't intend to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] it up now. Trouble is, so many churches don't have an alternative to alcoholic wine so folk like me who want to take communion have to reject the wine. I have a chat with God before I go up to the rail and explain why I don't drink the wine, I'm confident he understands, but there must be many recovering alcoholics who are greatly troubled by the communion challenge (ie. feeling bad about not supping from the cup or worse, taking a sip and that being the catalyst to end their sobriety, believe me it's that easy). How does your church deal with this issue please?

Very good question. Thanks!