One of the joys of being a Presbyterian pastor is voting on changes in the Book of Church Order. While I was a member of the ARP this was a joy I had infrequently. As a member of the PCA, it is one I have more often than I would like.
This summer at General Assembly, we had an Overture to explicitly prohibit the practice of intinction, or dipping the bread into the wine (or more commonly grape juice) when administering communion. I have had some experience in my life with the practice. At times in my youth, the Roman Catholic Church would practice it. How they administered communion kept changing. If you were away for awhile you could safely wonder how it was being done “now”.
I personally do not like intinction. We did dip one Sunday in the church in which I am pastor because we thought we had run out of communion cups. We celebrate weekly communion. It was a pragmatic decision based on our circumstances. It seemed less problematic than withholding the means of grace from the congregation. We actually had a new box of cups tucked away in the Administrative Assistant’s office. Surely the blood of Christ is sufficient to cover our numerous failings that day.
I view intinction as irregular. I refrain from using the term novelty, though in some senses it is appropriate. It is not taught in Scripture, and therefore a novelty. But it is not new. The Eastern Church has practiced it for many a century. It has been practiced at times in the Church of Rome. It does not have an extensive history, as far as I know, among Protestants. Therefore another word we could use is heteropraxy.
The issue for me is this: is it so irregular that we should censure those who practice it?
So, while I do not practice it, or encourage others to practice it I wonder if I should prohibit others from practicing it. How bad of a practice is it? This question often generates more heat than light. As a result, the Session has begun talking about it in light of the Presbytery debate and vote coming up on January. (Some friends think the BCO sufficiently prohibits intinction and changes are therefore unnecessary.)
Something about this rubs me the wrong way. I wasn’t sure why until this morning. Perhaps it was reading about logical fallacies in The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God that helped me see what was bothering me about this debate. I began to ponder it anew.
Think along with me, perhaps. What I offer is not the “final word.” I don’t express this as “you have to agree with me.” But I hope you do (I think, but reserve the right to change my mind).
Let’s start with what the regular (according to the rule of Scripture) and irregular practice (intinction) have in common as practiced among Presbyterians.
- Both views reject sacerdotalism, or salvation thru the sacraments as expressed in either the Church of Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy.
- Both views maintain both the Word and the sign as part of properly administering the sacrament.
- Both views agree that the sign comprises both bread and wine. It is not either bread or wine, but both together.
- They both maintain biblical standards regarding worthy participants. This is not a debate over paedocommunion though some paedocommunion advocates may also argue for intinction.
Where they differ is on how they administer the elements: consecutively or simultaneously. Here is where the light bulb when on for me this morning (and some may say it is a CFL and should be tossed in the circular file). What we seem to be arguing about is mode of communion. I get frustrated over the arguments over mode of baptism, and this may be why I’m frustrated over this argument.
Those arguing for prohibiting intinction sound like those arguing for immersion (and Luther arguing against the Reformed view of Christ’s presence). Luther pounded on the table repeating “Hoc est corpus meum.” Baptists pound on the table repeating “baptizo means to immerse.” And those wanting to prohibit intinction say “take and eat, take and drink.”
That does not mean they are wrong, like I think the Lutherans and Baptists are. I agree with them!
What I don’t agree with is drawing the line in the sand and essentially excommunicating people over mode of communion. We don’t excommunicate people over the mode of baptism (I really hope I didn’t give someone an idea for more BCO changes because I was being sarcastic in the first few sentences of this post). The Baptists do that! Are we wanting to “go Baptist” in this matter and essentially declare that “take and eat, take and drink” are of the essence of communion and must not be violated?
Right now I don’t. I think the unity of the Body matters and we should not divide over yet another secondary issue. This does not seem to me to be essential to the faith or our Presbyterian heritage. We have too many divisions among Presbyterians regarding exclusive Psalmody, the use of instruments, whether a woman can be a deacon (I believe women elders and pastors are clearly prohibited) and who knows what else. I wouldn’t want to divide over the mode of baptism. I don’t want to divide (or exclude) over the mode of communion.
In Frame’s book, he talks about theological disagreement. I found these words particularly pertinent:
“Often a theologian will correctly identify a weakness in the view of another but will play that weakness for far more than it is really worth. Thus minor differences are elevated to major differences, and theological disputes become church divisions. … Positively, we must learn to theologize in love (Eph. 4:15), a love that edifies and that promotes unity, not division.”
I see this as a minor difference related to the mode of communion, not the meaning of communion. Many seek to make this more a matter of meaning, and divide the church on it. I would rather we promote unity, despite differences on mode, and therefore love. Not only is such a path in keeping with Ephesians 4, but also the beginning of Colossians 2. As a denomination we need to be increasingly knit together, but we are using truth to pull ourselves together. Let’s save the division, and censure, for major differences which are actually outside the bounds of the system of doctrine.
Perhaps someone will say something to me before I vote that shows me how this does shipwreck people’s faith. Or this is at least as important as the proper subjects of baptism.
Cavman Considers 
Steve –
I appreciate your conclusions, as I also believe that this is yet another step toward the trivialization of the PCA. However, I want to ask a couple of questions about why this practice is “irregular.” It may be “uncommon,” but is it really irregular? Is the use of plastic shot glasses and Welch’s Grape Juice any more regular? Where are they indicated in Scripture?
One point is that most of the churches that practice intinction, like ours, practice it in a fashion that causes the partaker to interact separately with both bread and wine, by tearing off the bread then dipping it in the wine. This seems of essence in following Biblical practice as it is laid out in Scripture. Second, we seem to have varying practices laid out in various pictures of the institution of the Sacrament. In 1 Corinthians 11, many folks read into the Scripture that we must take “this” cup, which is not what Christ says. He says “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” Since we are all familiar with Seder practice, we know that each had a separate cup. So much for common cup.
In Luke 22 He instructs first “And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves.” But later He says, “And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.'” Again, we face a Seder setting with the traditional four cups of wine, the third being the Cup of Atonement.
Finally, on the cross, Jesus is offered some sour wine to drink. And how is it offered to Him? On a sponge extended on a hyssop branch. Combined with the Middle Eastern habit of using bread to dip into many dishes and liquids in order to consume them, and I am loathe to call Intinction “irregular.” It may be irregular in the modern day evangelical church, but then that list could be a long and terrifying one. Intinction consists of the breaking of bread and consuming the cup, just in a way that is not common in our American heritage. Does that really make it “irregular.” I think not.
Good article (haven’t watched the video yet). I think I’m mostly in agreement here with you. I also think there are more important discussions we in the PCA could be having about communion: frequency (weekly or more is both Biblically mandated and historically supported), the use of wine, going forward to receive the elements (though I would encourage this, I don’t think it’s something to censure), and the use of a common cup and loaf.
On a small note the Eastern practice is not exactly intinction. The loaf is cut in small pieces and placed in the chalice with the wine. The priest then uses a spoon to place both bread and wine together in the recipient’s mouth. So like preVatican II the recipient never touches with her hand the bread or cup. Although unlike Rome the wine is not withheld. (Intinction is more usually more narrowly defined as dipping the bread in the wine.) Not that I’m arguing for this practice; I think if the priests and deacons can partake separately from the loaf and chalice so should the laity.
CTHall
The cup used to be withheld, but typically is not anymore.
I guess I still consider it irregular since I don’t see it practiced that way in Scripture. There do seem to be 2 separate actions.
But certainly not a hill I want to die on or lose friends over (generally speaking).
I seem to be the guy in the middle- not defending it as my practice, not condemning it as others’ practice.
Still hoping we as a denomination settle this charitably. And that we can stop skirmishing over these kinds of things. I don’t want a “big tent” (such as a circus tent) such that we don’t stand for anything, but neither do I want a pup tent because we think everything is a hill to die on.
Having practiced this in a PCA church, I can tell you that I found it a helpful change (not every communion was this way) to keep it from being rote. Maybe that says something about my faith but I don’t think so. Also, I am pressed to find the 2 separate actions stated by Jesus in Luke 22 to be said is such a way as a narrow rule. If so, then the previous is right to point out the error of our juice shots. I suspect both Jesus and Paul had numerous sips at each meal.
Cav, I should have clarified that the Eastern position is not like PreVatican II Rome where the cup was withheld. Although in the Mass for my grandmother, the priest withheld the cup from the laity, so it must still be an option. (One of the ways in which Roman transubstantiation is like Korban where the traditions of man overrule the commands of God.)
Some churches still go by PreVatican II standards. They are rejecting that liberal spirit 🙂
I enjoy a few gulps. I don’t use the tiny cups.
This is one reason why, I think, mode is of lesser importance than the other matters- we don’t really know HOW they did this.
I think we need to adhere to the original message which is bless the bread and wine in Jesus name. He broke bread with his disciples and gave us a wonderful and beautiful way to bask in his light. However. We live in a different time and need to evolve to some extent. You could be debating wine vs grape juice but we have reformed alcoholics that we graciously bring into the church, we also have all kinds odd diseases out there and sharing a cup is just not practical in this day and age. Stay with the fundamental idea of washing away your sins and stop bickering about how it is administered. We have bigger fish to fry in this century. Is this what we want to be remembered for??????????
Maybe you and the Elders could share a common cup.