It was reported a couple of days ago that the Church of England was asked to consider the use of non-alcoholic wine and wheat-free bread as part of the eucharist. The case was made on behalf of those who have a history of alcoholism and those who suffer from wheat intolerances.

However, Michael Ipgrave – the bishop of Lichfied and chair of the church’s liturgical commission – said changing the rules would overturn two settled positions of the C of E; namely, what constitutes bread and wine suitable for communion and that believers can participate without consuming both elements.

The Guardian report:

C of E canon law states that the bread used for holy communion should be of the “best and purest wheat flour that conveniently may be gotten, and the wine the fermented juice of the grape, good and wholesome”.

The synod’s position is that while “it is appreciated that the legal position … may cause difficulties for those suffering from alcoholism or coeliac disease”, the current rules make enough accommodation.

It said using wine free from alcohol would be contrary to Church law because the results of fermentation would be “nullified”, and alternative wafers – made of ingredients such as rice, potato flour and tapioca – could not be considered “bread” because of the lack of wheat.

However, communion bread made with wheat flour “that has been processed to reduce the amount of gluten to a low level” can be used, along with communion bread “made with ordinary wheat flour”.

I think a few things bear saying here.

First, I think it is legitimate to ask what are appropriate forms for communion. We do, as a counterpoint, legitimately ask these questions about  baptism. That is, is sprinkling or pouring legitimate or must baptism be by immersion? Must we do it in outdoor running water or is an indoor pool acceptable? I am not getting into those (or the various related) questions here. Just noting that we do have to accept how far is the specific form prescribed and how far might we legtimately depart from it before it ceases to meaningfully bear the symbolism intended. And so, regarding communion, is it legitimate to use coca-cola and yorkshire puddings, for example, or are they so far removed from the intended symbolism that it fails to adequately signify the thing signfied? If we allow any room for departures, the question is how far and to what degree? Again, I don’t intend to resolve that here, just note that the fundamental question is legitimate.

Second, even if we are going to be relatively tight on the specific words of Jesus (though let’s not forget some reformers went hard on the literalism of ‘this is my body’ in ways that we would generally reject *cough* Luther), we have to look carefully at what Jesus said. Jesus nowhere insists on glutenous bread and alcoholic wine. In fact, Jesus really doesn’t specify anything about the bread or wine at all! Contrary to popular belief, he doesn’t even say anything about the colour of the wine (no mention of the word ‘red’), which led John Calvin to the view that the specific type of wine – red or white – really didn’t matter. If Calvin is right about that, we have to reckon that Jesus equally mentioned nothing about the gluten nor alcoholic content either. In fact, in Matthew, Jesus goes on to refer more broadly still to ‘fruit of the vine’, minimally leaving the door open to non-alcoholic grape juice potentially carrying his meaning, being as it is just as much ‘fruit of the vine’. The question here is, is there anything in Jesus’ words that would rule out gluten-free bread and non-alcoholic wine (or similar ‘fruit of the vine’)? It seems to me the answer is not.

Third, it may be argued that Jesus would have no understanding of gluten-free bread nor alcohol-free wine. We must take his words literally and this cannot possibly have been his meaning. Two problems follow here.

The first problem is that Jesus was repurposing the passover meal and was clearly, therefore, using unleavened bread. Such an argument, if we are going to be this finickety, necessitates the use of unleavened bread. After all, he says this bread not some other unnamed form of bread. If we have no qualms using other forms of leavened bread, there should be no problem with taking a fairly broad understanding of the word ‘bread’ altogether which would include gluten free options. The same would similarly hold for wine.

The other problem is what we might call the ‘missionary problem’. Namely, there are many parts of the world that simply do not have anything equivalent to what we would recognise as ordinary bread. In China, for example, they call bread what we would call something closer to batter or dumplings (that idea of using yorkshire puddings, which my Chinese friends think of as ‘bread’, suddenly starts to look more promising!) What are half the world supposed to do when they convert if the only acceptable form of bread is a decidedly Western one? Are we suggesting they can never take the Lord’s Supper credibly? If we think they can take it in some local form that would reasonably substitute for bread, we suddenly have less of a case to deny a much nearer form of bread, such as gluten-free bread, that is nevertheless properly recognised as bread.

Fourth, the argument against permitting non-alcoholic wine and gluten-free bread is that one can still participate without partaking of the emblems. This seems a particularly odd argument to me. Not least, how does anybody distinguish between those participating but not partaking of the emblems and those who are not permitted to participate who are also not taking the emblems? It seems to me that partaking of the emblems necessarily is to participate and failure to receive the emblems is to explicitly not participate. That is what withholding the emblems explicitly communicates (or, rather, ex-communicates) according to scripture. It is therefore the case that failure to provide means by which those who are physically unable to receive alcohol or gluten can participate is necessarily to exclude them from the ordinance.

Now, one might respond to that by arguing that whilst they are sadly excluded, their condition necessarily releases them from the command. Given that (most) Protestants don’t believe in saving grace being conferred through the receipt of the emblems ex opere operato, to not partake physically does not in any way change one’s standing before the Lord. I think there is a legitimate case to be made to that effect here – not unlike the one we might make waiving the need for somebody to be baptised before joining the church because they might have a heart attack if lowered into water or something – but if this is the argument, we need to own it. It needs to be admitted that people are necessarily being excluded from partaking of the ordinance and the reason is because we do not believe that the form of bread or wine that would let them join is permissible. For the reasons above, I do not find such a prohibition necessary nor biblically cogent. But those who insist it is must not pretend that people are still joining in and partaking when clearly they are not. They must own the exclusion which they are enforcing.

I think those arguments make it clear enough. I do not see anything in the command of Christ – implied nor explicitly demanded – that would stop us using gluten-free bread or non-alcoholic wine. I do believe we are necessarily excluding people from the ordinance if they cannot receive the emblems. Scripture gives us some clear grounds on which we actively should seek to exclude people from participating. It seems evident enough that past problems with alcoholism, allergies and gluten-intolerances are not those grounds. So, in principle, I find the C of E line on this question, well, questionable.

But I think one much bigger point needs to be made. It is the rankest of hypocrisy to be splitting hairs over whether gluten-free bread and non-alcoholic wine are quite bready and winey enough for us to use in communion, in the face of genuine needs amongst our people, and claim it overturns ‘settled church positions’ when much bigger, gospel-denying positions that overturn not just the formal teaching of the Church of England held throughout its history, but that of all churches since the Apostolic-era, can be adopted. If ever there was a direct parallel with the Pharisees tithing their dill and cumin whilst neglecting justice, mercy and faithfulness, this is surely it. A great deal of noise made about the breadyness of the bread and the wineyness of the wine whilst excluding some the Lord Jesus (by all our reckoning) includes, and yet failing to uphold basic gospel ethics and actively propagating gospel-denying doctrine that will make people ‘twice as much a child of hell’. When Jesus spoke about straining gnats and swallowing camels, it is impossible not to think this is precisely the kind of thing he is talking about.