WINE AT WEDDINGS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21365, 19 June 1931, Page 6

WINE AT WEDDINGS

TO TUE EDITOR. Sir, —Without desiring to enter into the controversy—for most newspaper correspondence is fruitless, and so easily loses sight of the main issue—may I point out a crucial fallacy? The arguments of both parties imply an unwarranted assumption—viz., that what was done, or was not done, in our Lord’s time must necessarily he done, or not be done, in our own time. A little reflection will convince them that this is uot a valid assumption. Any principle, any ideal, to be a guide and an inspiration, must be independent of a time reference. Though necessarily clothed in the thought form of, and enacted in references to the practices of, the period in which it is first presented, to be an inspiration to all men for all time it must bo above the formal and the merely temporal. It must be dynamic and absolute—not static and relative — and capable of continual reinterpretation and application in reference to the development of man and his relation to bis changing environment. Thus, the Christian ethic must first be understood in reference to the environment in which it was propounded by our Lord, and the underlying principles having been grasped, the attempt must be made to apply those principles to the solution of our twentieth century problems, which are vastly different from those of Palestine 1900 years ago. The question is not whether the use ot wine, fermented or otherwise, was sanctioned by Jesus in His own day, but whether its use may be sanctioned to-day. I suggest this line of approach to all moral problems, again stressing the vital point that what was done or was uot done then is not necessarily a guide as to what should be done now.—l am, etc., June }S K. L. Warren.

ro TUE EDITOR Sir, —May 1 attempt to resolve the perplexities of your correspondent “ X,’’ who wonders why Presbyterians, professing to be followers of One Whose first miracle was changing water into wine at the wedding least at Cana, and Who was called a winebibber by His enemies, can be prohibitionists? The history ot the matter is an interesting glimpse into the Presbyterian mind. When the Presbyterian Church decided many years ago to make prohibition the leading article of its creed (it is now, ot course, almost its only article), it was faced with the difficulty that puzzles “ X.” Even the church had to recognise that for centuries no Christian church had had any scruple as to the use of intoxicating liquor; that, till the eighteenth century, that use was universal, since there was nothing else but water to drink; that millions of Christians in successive generations had all their lives drunk wine, beer, and other strong liquors, and had died in the belief (now discovered to be mistaken) that they were good Christians; that these erring people would, in fact, have considered, had they ever thought of it, that abstention from wine as a matter of faith was the mark of an infidel follower of' Mahound, opposed to the example of their Founder, and equally to the practical example ot every great Christian, from Augustine to Luther, and from Calvin to Knox. It had to admit that the use of whisky was ns universal in Scottish religion, whether the users were ministers or laymen, ns that of the Shorter Catechism: that neither the Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Church, nor the Church of England had ever thought of prohibition-, and, in fact, were then, as they are now, so lost to elementary Christian principles as to consider the moderate use of intoxicating liquor in daily life ns being as well sanctioned as its use in the sacraments of the Faith. Those, “X ” will admit, were serious difficulties. Even a fanatic might have paused. But the difficulty had to be faced, even overcome, if the first requirement of a Presbyterian were to be that he should be a prohibitionist. Difficulties yield best to boldness, and boldness suggested a He—uot a hesitating, halfbaked, arguable lie, but a good, swinging, armour-plated lie. It is bejieved that the first suggestion of the solution came from America, the land of the wide open spaces where men arc men, when they are not fundamentalists, “ red-hot Gospellers,” or “ bootleggers.” Why not say, without equivocation, that the wine referred to in the Gospels was non-intoxicating? It is true that tradition, language, and common sense were against such a theory; that this non-intoxicating, unfermented grape juice burst bottles, made men drunk, “made glad the heart of man”; that there was not much point in maligning anyone as a winebibber if ho were drinking only fruit juice; that in 18 centuries of Christian study this idea bad never even occurred to anyone. No matter, if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it, particularly if they want to believe it. It was admittedly the best lie, —lot it go. It is believed that at first Presbyterian thought was divided on the expediency of the idea. All were agreed, of course, that it would impose on women secretaries of temperance societies, young people in Y.M.C.A.’s that don’t know the difference between fermentation and putrefaction, and such unthinking, much loss reasoning, people. These people, unfortunately, in spite of free education, exist in every community, and they have votes —why, even those who impose on them would be puzzled to explain. But would it go down with the intelligent? Eventually the aforesaid thought became divided into three classes. The first honestly don’t believe it (this class one is glad to reflect includes the best brains in the church), and admit it is a lie. The second know it is a He, but argue plausibly enough that it’s a He in a good cause, ergo a good and justifiable He. The third manage to believe it, mostly by not thinking about it at all, or by a system of arguing in a circle that passes with them for logic. By the efforts of the second and third classes the lie has now acquired some standing, and is, I believe, in some quarters regarded as fundamental.

I hope I have satisfied “ X If he is still puzzled as to why no churches, except the Presbyterian and a few “ fancy religions, give credence to the idea, indeed, why hardly any church in Eurooe believes in prohibition at all, and why millions of good Christians in Europe go on drinking their daily wine, temperately and avoiding excess, and in thankfulness for a good gift, all I can suggest is that they lack invention. Onr Presbyterians have at least this laugh on them, that they have lost a great opportunity of promoting faith. The faith that can swallow nonfermented wine finds Jonah’s whale, Balaam’s ass, Joshua’s juggling with the sun, and so on, simply pap for babes.— I am, etc., In Vino Veritas.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —It is very gratifying to one who docs not approve of the increase of the wine-drinking habit at wedding breakfasts. and is concerned at the moral laxi+y which the habit produces in the lives of young people who hitherto had no inclination to taste wine of any kind, to read in your paper the varied ideas of several correspondents concerning wine, its uses and abuses—and the little known use and degree of fermentation. May I add a little meat to xvhat promises to be an interesting stew? The question of wine at xveddings is one tha t should have been relegated to the class stumbling blocks ’’ before this time, but the comparative silence on the subject has given opportunity to young people to dabble with intemperance by letting them continue under the misapprehension that Christ made intoxicating wine at a xvedding feast, and by so doing, flatly ridiculed the warnings of the Old Testament Fathers regarding over-indulgence and drunkenness. Because Christ made ivine for His friends, some persons prefer to consider, if they consider at all, that He produced six pots of the best port wine, similar to that displayed in any hotel bar of to day. Let your correspondents understand from the beginning that “ wine ” used at a feast 1900 years ago is not the same as the “ fortified ” wine served at modern wedding breakfasts. “Fortified” means “strengthened,” and in’ the case of xvine we know to-day, strengthened with highly alcoholic brandy, which is added after the grape juice is properly fermented. No one with any knowledge of the subject would deny that port wine, sherry, and company are fortified wines. Will your correspondents be pleased to go back with me to the beginning of the process? In the first place are the grapes of all kinds —dry and blood, easy-growing and selected. Each kind is the producer of a different variety of juice—juice which eventually finds its way to our market as champagne, port, sherry of

a dozen different “ bodies.” To the skins of the grape adhere minute particles oi yeast, caught from the atmosphere by the surface of the fruit. Thus in dry weather a grape will hold more of these yeasty particles than it will in wet weather, when the dust containing the atoms is continually being washed off At the extracting of the juice, a good quantity of this yeast becomes mixed with the pure juice, and commences a gentle fermentation. This fermentation, it left alone —that is if the juice is left uncovered to the air—will work itself out eventually, and leave a wine containing a proportion of alcoholic property; but it, as is the case with kept wine commonly used in the East, the container is sealed, and the juice kept from the air, this fermentation ceases immediately. because contact with the air and the use of the oxygen in the air are essential to fermentation. Grape juice, or wine, certainly ferments, but to vastly different degrees. Every fruit juice will ferment under certain conditions. Thus, if the grapes are picked after rain, fermentation will be slow and difficult compared with yeastcovered fruit picked dry, and in all cases can the production of alcohol be regulated by the sealing of the containers. The national beverage of the people in the time of Christ was this grapejnice, wine, or whatever your correspondents like to call it, drunk in its “good” or “ new ” state—that is before it becomes old with progressive fermentation. The argument of those who quote Christ’s miracle as supporting the use of wine at weddings is, therefore, of no account whatever. Processes, with the times, have changed in the last 19 centuries, until the wine known and used to-day is us far removed from the wine of olden times as P. G. Wodehouse is from King Solomon. ‘‘Look not upon the wine when it is red.” Red wine is grapejnice made clear and highly alcoholic by advanced fermentation. Finally, thus you have the three types of beverage wine:—(a) “Good wine,” the juice not allowed to ferment; (b) red, white, or “old” wine, progressively fermented, naturally or artificially, until it contains a large percentage of alcohol, and is easily intoxicating; and (c) modern port wine and sherry, the juice of grapes .fully fermented, and, note, with the addition of pure brandy to “ fortify ” it. Seven parts of fermented wine are required to produce one part of brandy, and brandy is 75 per cent alcoholic. If any reader is under the impression that when drinking port wine be is> drinking the ordinary fermented juice of grapes, then I trust the foregoing facts will enlichten him as to the properties of what he drinks. If “A Temperance Advocate” would study this subject more fully and offer a little helpful criticism instead of attempting to cast doubt upon the beliefs of some of your young , correspondents, I am sure many readers would entertain a more charitable feeling towards him; and I desire to thank “ X ” for opening this subject, while at the same time pointing out to him that, as yet, no correspondent has denied the fact that Christ converted water into “ good wine.” But let him mark the word “ good,” and if he reads his Bible with intelligence and endeavours to see the underlying thoughts, of which the written words are only windows, concerning wine, then he must admit that there is reason in what other people believe. Somehow, however, I feel that he will read the Bible for the sake of reading and not thinking. To him, all “spades” will never be anything but spades, "wine” nothing but that bottled at 4s to 40s a bottle; and “ a temperance advocate ” no more, no less, than “ one moderate and restrained in speech and conduct, and etcetera.”— I am, etc., Y. Dunedin. June 18.