Unofficial poll (no options, just up for comments) on your reaction to this situation. A new church is started and is 100% solid Baptist. Good preaching, good music, biblical standards (even though most are new Christians and have a long ways to go to maturity). Church planter asked for support to help with finding a building, etc, as well as helping with his bi-vo income. Issue: This new church uses wine at communion. It offers both leavened welchade and unleavened wine, clearly indicated. They believe wine is the biblical position, but understand that some dare not touch even a sip so make accomodation for the weaker brethren. Led by a state pastor who is noted for his "abstinence only" position on alcohol, a number of churches will not help this new work. Again, the new work is 99.9% compatible in doctrine and practice, varying only in the communion elements. No money, bad-mouthing the new work, damning the pastor, etc etc and "unless you change your church practice, not a penny from our churches" mandate. Talk about "lording" over another church and telling that "autonomous" church how it must act!! So . . balcony is open. I know many here are of the "abstinence" camp and we've had discussions on that. But do you have churches in your "group" that would not have an issue with this extremely minor optional use of alcohol? Would you support a church like this new plant that uses wine in communion? Would you lord over another congregation and demand they follow your practice or no fellowship/support? Thanks.