The failure of the majority side to provide grounds for its committee recommendation was telling. The overture marshaled an impressive list of arguments: biblical (Jesus’ Eucharistic words), theological (the sacrificial meaning of the separation of the body and blood), historical (two Western church councils and the uniform practice of Reformed Protestantism), and constitutional (the language of the Book of Church Order). The case was airtight. No rebuttal of these arguments was attempted, save that of adiaphora, indifference.
The Reformed principle requires that we worship “according to Scripture.” The Last Supper was a meal, a covenantal meal, with two distinct sacramental actions. Consequently, our administration of the Supper must mirror Jesus’ own. Though some of the particulars of mealtime customs may differ from culture to culture, we are to get as close as is practical to the original, while distinguishing what is important from what is indifferent.
“Tradition” is not a bad word. The Apostle Paul urges us to “maintain the traditions” (1 Corinthians 11:2; cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6). Among the benefits of belonging to a denomination is that we don’t have to reinvent the liturgical wheel every generation. Our spiritual fathers and mothers have worked through a number of issues for us, and the Fifth Commandment would have us honor their work. They grappled with grape juice, with remaining in the pews, with multiple cups, with leavened and unleavened bread, and concluded that the churches have latitude when it comes to these questions. What they never approved of was intinction. They could not regard it as a matter of indifference, though the practice was known.
Among the characteristics of the apostolic is a high regard for the catholicity of the church. The Apostle Paul makes regular appeal to the uniform practice of the churches to which he expected rogue congregations to conform. When regulating the central elements of worship (e.g., praying, singing, preaching, and the administration of the Lord’s Supper), he appeals not merely to his apostolic authority, but to the practice of all the churches (1 Corinthians 10-14). “We have no other practice,” he says, “nor have the churches of God” (1 Corinthians 11:16; cf. 1:2; 4:17; 14:33; Philippians 4:9; 2 Timothy 2:1; 3:14). Substantial uniformity in worship is a biblical ideal. Conformity with the church of the past and with fellow churches in the present is a laudable goal.
The motivation for introducing what can only be considered a novelty in the Reformed church appears to be pragmatic. The desire to administer Communion weekly, coupled with the press of time, prompts the quest for a quicker means of distribution. Here, again, our heritage counsels different priorities. The Reformed church has always encouraged careful observance over frequent. Presbyterians and Puritans developed periodic Communion seasons because depth and intensity were considered vital in ways that weekly Communion was not. Attempts to alter established practices in order to rush the administration of the Lord’s Supper are, from the perspective of Reformed Protestantism, both theologically and pastorally dubious.
Terry Johnson is senior pastor of Independent Presbyterian Church in Savannah, Ga.
Intinction was practiced by our Lord at the Last Supper. He did it as a way of identifying the traitor Judas to at least Peter and John. The most our intinction advocates can ask is that maybe we include a moment in the Sacrament for the pastor to identify, using intincture, whoever in the congregation he knows (as moderator of session and congregation) has been, or is on their way to being, excoummuicated from the fellowship. Short of that, to make intincture the heart of every congregant’s PARTICIPATION in the body and blood of the Lord is to severely err, usually on the very slim basis of some mere argument for convenience.
Neal – The Lord did not practice intinction at the Last Supper. Quite the opposite. The dipping of bread in a bowl of olive oil and spices is a common Middle Eastern practice even today. The word for bowl in Mt 26:23 is ‘trublion’ – a bowl or dish, in agreement with this tradition. The word for cup in Mt 26:26 is ‘poterion’ – a very different word. Of course, Jesus commands his disciples to “eat” in verse 26 and to “drink” in 27 were distinct commands and acts which are violated by the practice of intinction. As Terry aptly points out in his essay, there is no Scriptural support for intinction, nor in our Standards. Intinction is indeed a modern novelty without support as the majority of our last Assembly recognized.
Bob, my sarcasm sometimes fails for lack of precision, but at least drew from you the obvious point that the practice of dipping bread into wine was not practiced by our Lord Jesus in His institution of the sacrament.Our Intinctionist brothers have ABSOLUTELY no exegetical ground upoon which to stand. Having no such ground, they need to stop trying, for the reason of mere convenince of administration, to mainstream this unBiblical practice into the heart of PCA worship.
How does anybody have the nerve to quote BCO and the Confession against intinction, unless they themselves serve the Lord’s Supper with a single common cup and with wine?
“The Lord Jesus has, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to declare his word of institution to the people, to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants.” WCF 29.3 – specifically, wine and a single cup. Our Assembly uses grape juice and multiple cups. To then quote the Confession against intinction? Do we not call that hypocrisy?
As I did on the floor of GA, once again I find the word ‘novelty’ to be insulting and demeaning to brothers who, in good conscience, practice Intinction in the churches they pastor and shepherd. Personally I do not practice it, and never have, but to make such a presumptive statement that implies a lack of biblical integrity is to make an accusation against the character of brothers in ministry (and this from one whose church is not in our denomination!).
I pray this effort will fail, and that we will become a denomination that celebrates its mission, diversity and unity, rather than oppressively attack its own with such heavy handedness.
Mike-my Brother in the Lord,
Why is the word “novelty” insulting and demeaning?
Are you aware of PCA churches or ministers who asked permission of the church courts to introduce this practice?
Scholars who study worship practices in church history have said that this is a modern phenomenon in PCA churches. It is a new practice even within a new denomination. Isn’t the burden of proof on those who introduce something new to ask permission first? If not then properly speaking this is a discussion about a “novelty.”
Melton – We don’t know one another, but I hope we can meet some time.
A Couple Things:
1. I find it to be demeaning because it also implies something about the intention of those practicing it – that it is less about Orthodoxy and a conviction borne of scriptures and sacrament, and more about wanting to do something ‘hip.’ The dictionary lists one definition of ‘novelty’ as “denoting something intended to be amusing as a result of its new or unusual quality.” It is fraught with assumptions untested by true dialogue.
2. If we had to take this before the courts before practicing, then this measure would be in the form of charges, wouldn’t they? Obviously the practice is not forbidden or our presbyteries would not be…
It may be a “novelty” in the PCA, but it is hardly a novelty in church history. It has long been practiced in Eastern Orthodoxy as well as Roman Catholicism (at various times in the latter).
The question, as it always should be, is what Scripture says. Our standards should reflect Scripture (and I understand some mean that when they mention the BCO).
I think the question before us is: Is this practice so irregular that it deserves censure? I think most of us agree it would be considered irregular. But censurable? That is what we have to sort out. I’m not sure it does so much damage to the sacrament that we should censure men.
I have no problem with forbidding intinction, but something also needs to be said about forbidding tiny cups and grape juice.
I have just recently returned from Africa where I was giving thanks that we as a denomination are concerned about being true to the Scripture in all things. I saw there where the Word has not yet won the battle over culture in many circumstances in the church – I am praying that many here who know the truth will be moved to go and teach there. I am certainly not a learned scholar of the Word, nor burdened with the overwhelming responsibility of rightly shepherding the flock. I do though pray that in our endeavor to be true to the Word that we will be known more as people who strive to live out the love of Christ in the lives of the hurting rather than known as those who are being divided regarding dipping or sipping.