The PCA is 40 years old. It seems sad, then, that we’re still learning, only by fits and starts, that the mature way to define boundaries of doctrine and practice is by study, first in presbyteries — praying, reasoning, and arguing in a setting where relationships are strong and needed time can be taken — and then bringing matters to General Assembly, where a thousand men — many of them strangers to each other — make final decisions.
Pastor Rick Phillips enunciated the principle in the last issue of byFaith: “Unity always takes place within the context of personal relationships,” he said. And he’s right. If we ignore that, we’ll act nobly but rashly in our zeal to be faithful to God’s Word and to our Confessional Standards — which I think we did at the 40th General Assembly when we dealt with Overture 30, “concerning intinction,” (the dipping of the bread into the wine in the Lord’s Supper).
Flawed Process
A minority of the Overtures Committee set aside the language of Overture 30, which sought to prohibit intinction. They drafted a new revision to the Book of Church of Order 58-5 and, because there was no time for the Overtures Committee to review, much less to debate the change, it was presented directly to the Assembly.
Surely the current rules need to be changed: No proposed amendment to the Constitution should be presented to the Assembly without first being debated by the Overtures Committee.
Flawed Argument
More significantly, the minority’s reasoning is inconsistent. Their argument simply pulls one command from our Lord’s words at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:27), “Drink,” and uses that as grounds to prohibit intinction. But it ignores the rest of the command, “Drink of it, all of you.” By their logic, individual cups should be prohibited too, since the most natural — and common — interpretation is that Jesus passed His cup and commanded all His disciples to drink from it.
And our Standards? Taken in its historical context, the Westminster Directory for Worship is clearly referring to a common cup in Chapter 58-5. Jesus, of course, drank wine, and the Directory therefore prescribes that, too. Yet, no one insists that we prohibit grape juice. But why not? Nor does anyone demand that we have a church meal in connection with the Lord’s Supper, which seems to be the New Testament pattern (see Matthew 26:26 and I Corinthians 11:17-26).
Core questions have simply not been addressed carefully: By what principles do we distinguish good practice from bad? What should we require? What should we forbid? And where might we want to encourage or discourage a practice while neither mandating nor prohibiting it?
If we’re to attain “peace through unity in the truth,” as one brother eloquently puts it, we have to be wiser. It is not mature for us to be defining doctrine and practice by overture to the General Assembly. Doctrinal deliberations should begin at presbytery, where we can reflect and reason together with greater care and mutual esteem, and then rise up to the General Assembly.
Ron Lutjens is senior pastor of Old Orchard Church in Webster Groves, Mo.
I appreciate Ron and Rick’s points. Unfortunately, I think our presbyteries see themselves as merely credentialing agencies that provide a particular professional guild with the pathway to pariticipate in various benefits of 501c3 prosperity. This as opposed to seeing themselves as primarily worshipping fellowships to which has been entrusted the protection and timely refining of our denomination’s confession and practice of prayer and the ministry of the word. Our historic Scots/Dutch models were geographically much smaller, and demographically less diverse, than the national church we face every GA. We need to ramp up a general reform of how our BCO/RAO stimulates and regulates our practice of congregation/resbytery/GA in the USA.
Do we attain, that is to say, accomplish, or create unity? Or “eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace”? (Eph 4:3)
I understand the angst that Ron feels, but strongly disagree with his premise and Neal’s analysis. This issue didn’t start at GA, but in the sessions and presbyteries around the PCA. These bodies rightly brought the issue before the GA in the form of an overture. The Overtures Committee handled the overture in accordance with RAO 15 and properly presented their findings to the Assembly.
The core issue here isn’t procedural but Scriptural. Nor is this about the incidentals that Ron and others bring forward. Scripture clearly and in multiple places separates “eat” and “drink” in the Lord’s Supper. The PCA either needs to follow the Lord’s *explicit* commands in Scripture or explicitly set them aside. Hence the overture before us.
The issue of whether or not to celebrate the Lord’s Supper by intinction is not analogous to the issue of whether or not we should use individual cups. Neither is it comparable to the wine vs. grape juice debate (as long as we us the fruit of the vine we are safe). If we allow intinction, we are not just failing to follow Jesus’ example of using one cup (which I’m all for) or disregarding the practice of the early church in using fermented fruit of the vine (which I’m also for). In celebrating the Supper by intinction, we are disregarding Jesus’ clear command. The words of institution in the Lord’s Supper contain two commands: “Take eat,” and “Drink from it all of you.” We are required to obey both commands; anything less is…
As a military chaplain for 27 years I know intinction has been practiced in combat situations, and I see nothing Biblically wrong with such a practice given those circumstances. However, as Terry Johnson points out in his following article intinction should not be the reason for quicker communion to allow greater frequency. Frequent communion is more attune to the Scriptures than infrequent. Communion in comfortable settings removed from the circumstances of the battle field certainly allow for both the breaking of bread and the drinking of the cup either common or separate. And this can be done with weekly communion. Why should we be worried by time when gather only once a week to CELEBRATE the Lord’s Supper!
This whole debate demonstrates the wisdom of God in choosing 12 fishermen and only 1 theologian to spread the gospel.
Just to point out the obvious, but a MAJORITY of GA voted for the amendment to the BCO on the issue of intinction.
1. Majority, Really now! 14 votes of about 1100 cast
2. This issue should not ( my opinion ) have been debated, but studied by ad hoc, or some entity for later presentation.
3. God so loved the World He did not send a committee , or G.A. However, In His wisdom, we do have the best vehicles for governance and ministry in Christendom. I agree with so many comments as to how we can in Love and Subjection to Him improve our PCA.
Cub,
A majority is a majority. It certainly isn’t a minority… Did I miss something on definitions of ‘majority’ when I read Robert’s Rules?
Yes we need to subject ourselves to the clear revelation of the Lord and not the ‘novelties motivated by pragmatism’.
Andrew
Cub,
Relative to your third point above, I don’t see how we improve the PCA or glorify God in love and subjection by disobeying His explicit commands in Scripture. In John 14:15, 15:10, and other places, Jesus tells us how to show our love for Him – by obedience to His commands. I believe that includes His explicit separation of the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine in setting forth His ordinance until He returns. Jesus never tolerated, much less advocated, human worship innovations over obedience to His commands – quite the opposite. The choice before the PCA is very simple: either love our Lord through obedience to His explicit commands, or offer strange fire which He did not command (Lev 10:1).
Only from the perspective that our Lord in His Word and our Confes/Directory are unclear concerning intinction or possibly that intinction is a matter of liberty, can it be said that my brothers in Savannah River Presbytery and General Assembly, were “defining doctrine and practice.” Rather, changing the sacramental actions and elements at the Table contrary to our Lord’s established prescription also involves us in changing the sacramental meaning attached to those actions and elements — This was the change of doctrine & practice which the overture remedied. We do most certainly follow Christ (as G. Gillespie demonstrates) by taking, as Christ did, the wine at hand or as some of our Churches do, by taking the fruit of the vine at hand.