Why do people want to do the Lord’s Supper by intinction? I’m having trouble seeing any upside.
Tags: Intinction
Intinction
45 comments
COMMENTS
Comments are welcome. However, commenting is a privilege, not a right. I reserve the right to reject any comment, especially those that —- are rude or offensive in tone;
- do not stay on the topic;
- merely make assertions and do not offer argumentation.
Well, the picture you use suggests one reason: sanitation. It avoids passing germs when a common cup is used, while retaining the common cup itself. Practical, rather than theological.
Intinction reminds me of Judas Iscariot dipping the sop. Jesus pointed out the betrayer by this sign. The practical application does not escape the obvious implication of betrayal.
I might ask why modern Evangelicals and Presbyterians refuse to follow the elements prescribed in Scripture, including unleavened whole wheat bread and fermented wine? I might also point out that the common cup was part of the institution as well. Fermented wine is sanitary in itself. The fear of disease is an unjust one, in my opinion.
The Bible nowhere prescribes Koolaide or grape juice as the proper element representing the new covenant or the blood of Christ. From earliest times fermented wine was the use of all churches, including the churches of the early Reformers.
See: Common Cup Re-evaluated
I was traveling recently and attended an evening service (at a non-Reformed church as far as I could tell) which practiced intinction. There were other interesting aspects to their particular practice – they used a common loaf of ordinary (leavened) bread, and had women ushers serve, reminding the partaker that “This is the body of Christ… This is the blood of Christ” as you broke a piece of bread then dipped (into either wine or juice, both of which were provided).
I only know of one church (my former church) that has gone completely to serving only wine at the Lord’s Supper, though I believe one may arrange in advance for juice by speaking to an elder.
I think this approach, properly fenced, is probably the best option – if a visitor has a conscience issue with taking alcohol I don’t think it’s right to ‘force’ them to partake of it or decline the sacrament – but I believe in teaching that the proper element for all, regardless of previous reasoning, is wine and not juice.
Merely on the sanitary issue, “No” to intinction for the same reason that a bowl of chips at a party poses a health hazard, precisely because of how many hands have been in it. Most will not manage to be as fastidious as in the above picture.
I wonder if it is a holdover from the doctrine of transubstantiation? Let’s not spill the now consecrated blood of Christ on the carpet?
Tom, it certainly is a holdover, but that does not explain why PCA and Anglican Churches would want to do intinction. Any thoughts on that?
Tom, you are absolutely right. Intinction is a holdover and is not a proper way of receiving the sacrament. Wes, I think that many are practicing intinction only out of convenience and to save money on plastic shot glasses. Those little cardboard waffers cost pennies when bought in bulk and can be stored indefinitely. Everyone is so paranoid about germs that they want to eliminate drinking from the common cup or handling bread on a tray. The whole intinction thing is like everything else in the church, it becomes a matter of pragmatism.
I was in a PCA church that used intinction. I don’t remember anyone explaining why. They didn’t use communion wafers, though. It was a loaf of bread that you tore a piece off and dipped in the common cup. I always felt shortchanged, like something was missing.
I can’t believe no one has mentioned the obvious reason some folks in the PCA want to practice intinction: because it’s TRENDY! (“it’s not so bad bein’ trendy, everyone who looks like me is my friend!”)
My guess for why churches that are ostensibly Reformed initiated doing it is the time factor; they wanted to speed up the process of distributing the elements to larger groups. Perhaps, as someone has suggested, sanitary concerns in an age of AIDS was also a factor. From there it became “trendy”.
I would suggest that it is not wrong (i.e., it does not violate the regulative principle) for pastors and sessions to have practical considerations, such as wanting to do things more efficiently or prevent the spread of germs; those would be “circumstances” rather than “elements” of worship. But in this case, I do have to question whether the practice of intinction really obeys the commands of our Lord: “Take, eat… Drink of it, all of you” (Mt 26:26-27).
First off, let me be up front. I am a frequent reader here (don’t know if I’ve ever commented here before), and I really appreciate many of the participants in this discussion who I’ve seen in the past on this blog commenting on other issues I’m very concerned about in the PCA in particular.
I am also a deacon at a PCA church that practices intinction. We use four common cups, and break a common loaf of leavened bread, broken into four large pieces. After the consecration and explanation of the elements is made by the presiding TE, (including fencing the table) communicants are exhorted to examine themselves, per 1 Cor 11, then instructed to receive the elements from one of the REs stationed at the corners of the room. Communicants rise, and are offered the bread, along with a further statement by the administering RE that this represents “Christ’s body broken for you,” and they break off a piece and then dip into the cup, which is also offered by the elder with words to the effect that this cup represents “Christ’s blood shed for you.” Deacons & laymen are restricted from this privilege.
This particular church has been practicing it this way for at least the past 5 years that I’ve attended it, and certainly longer. The founding pastor has moved on to another field, and so has his most recent successor. The current pastor has not changed this practice, as it has never been controversial, except until recently and internally only with some (two that I know of) admitted germophobes in the congregation. I can assure you, whatever the reason they currently practice intinction, it is not because it’s ‘trendy.’ (If you think a ‘trend’ like something such as this lasts nearly a decade, either your definition of ‘trend’ is different than mine or there really is something the matter with Kansas).
I’m still waiting for the argument from anyone above that it is unbiblical per the Bible, the BCO, or the Westminster Standards, all which refer to “the cup.” The presence of this post is most likely the result of a recent overture to our presbytery, by a pastor from another church in our presbytery who objects to intinction, and who has made the same sort of charge on other public boards of it being done only because “they think it’s cool.” (read: ‘TRENDY”). As far as I know, the man has never visited our church or even knows anyone in our church at all. But somehow, he seems to know why we do it, I’m supposed to believe.
I am almost without a doubt the single most curmudeonly TR or at least “TR-sympathetic” (my own personal term for my viewpoint) in this particular congregation. Everyone else who is more conservative than the majority here have moved on to other fellowships, and not over how the Supper is administered here, either. It could easily be argued that this particular congregation is one of, if not the most “liberal” with regard to Reformed doctrine, piety and practice. But that is arguably not mostly because of any hostility to Reformed doctrine, piety and practice here, but due more to plain ignorance of it, sometimes willful, but mostly plain, and always, ignorance. It is not because of any FV tendencies here, either. I doubt that even the TEs here could quickly or easily cite what little they may even know about FV (one of the REs recently asked me what “FV” referred to in another blog post he was reading about this same recent intinction brouhaha, by the aforementioned overturer to presbytery). It is not because it’s cool or trendy. It’s because they don’t see it as unbiblical, and to be honest, in my humble opinion, it is no less biblical than using grape juice instead of wine, multiple little cups, or leavened bread, or any combination of the above.
I was not here when the founding TE established the church, nor even when his most recent successor was installed, and certainly not when the decision was made to celebrate the Supper by intinction here. However, I can be certain in averring to you all, it’s really being done by intinction here, if anything, less because it’s cool or trendy (if at all for either of those reasons) than because it’s an “echo” of the past in this particular church. No one in leadership, including the recently-installed new TE has even entertained the possibility. And for good reason. We’ve been busy trying to call a new pastor, and to survive the departure of the last one. It’s not even been on their radar screens, at least not until this recent overture to presbytery. So let’s put that out there for your consideration, brothers and sisters.
This or that local assembly (and I’m betting some others) may be doing it because it’s cool or trendy, but it’s just as possible and probably more likely that their congregations, as is ours, are composed of members and particularly officers, who have had little to no exposure to Reformed and Presbyterian practices as in other, more conservative congregations. When this church was established, it may not have been the case that the founding pastor valued these things himself, or looked for it/encouraged it in the men who were eventually installed as officers to lead the congregation with him. I believe that to be the case in my particular congregation, but I can really only speculate, never having met the man or talked with him about it. Really, that doesn’t matter on this issue. What matters is, is intinction “not a proper way” to practice the sacrament? If so, why? Is it biblically defensible? Is it constitutionally defensible according to the PCA’s BCO and the Westminster Standards? If so, how? And further, what to do once those questions have been answered?
Do I wish we were more P&R in my congreation, or even more closely in line with the RPW? Yes. Am I in a position to make that happen by myself? No. So, perhaps it might be the case that brothers who object to the practice of intinction might 1) build relationships with their neighboring assemblies & sessions & deaconates in their local presbyteries, 2) pray for and encourage them to think on these things more carefully, hopefully outside the courts of the church, and then…3) try making an argument to your brothers FOR a biblical practice of administering the sacraments, rather than psychoanalyzing the “offending” body for its current practice. Maybe, just maybe, you might gain a hearing.
I, for one, am all ears. Cite me BCO, WCF, WLC, WSC…the Bible (??) where it is laid out that it is to be done thus and such. I will take it to my session. They’re going to be dealing with it soon enough anyway, since there is an overture in process, now.
For now, I will say this to the above complaints…
RE: Judas dipped the sop – Does this not simply imply that it was common to dip the sop with someone you were eating and drinking with (period), and that Jesus indicated who would betray Him THAT night by that method, and nothing more? He likely dipped the sop with the rest of them that night after Judas left the upper room. The fact that intinction is reminiscent (to some, not me, or all, by any stretch of the imagination) of this episode in the gospel accounts does not constitute an argument against intinction.
I am truly asking this question, because I’m not a TE nor the son of a TE, nor am I any sort of biblical theologian to make the case, but I suspect that it was common practice in Jesus’ day to do so. Prove me wrong, if you can. I will yield to any sound argument brought to bear on the question.
RE: I felt “short changed” [sic] – Doctrinal development by feeling is for Emergents, isn’t it? Never mind asking why someone would feel this way. I for one, can think of no reason at all.
RE: “Intinction is a holdover and is not a proper way of receiving the sacrament.” – Saying so doesn’t make it so, in either case (i.e. that it is “a holdover,” from what? RC practice? or that it is “not a proper way”). Make an argument. I, for one, am all ears. Cite me BCO, WCF, WLC, WSC…the Bible (??) where it is laid out that the Supper is to be done, or not done thus and such way.
RE: It’s a health hazard – So is shaking hands with the pastor in the greeting line after church. Shall we just Purell our way through life, then? On a more serious note, this objection is barely worth even treating here.
Ultimately, brothers and sisters, I urge you to consider the example of a similar sort of episode in our common past. That episode and the same edifying principles are detailed in both Acts 15:1-30 & the entirety of Romans 14.
I’ll be happy to expound on my “feelings.” It seemed to me that the Lord’s Supper was not given it’s full due. As someone else mentioned, intinction doesn’t seem to fulfill take eat and drink this.
As to the OP’s question, “Why do people want to do the Lord’s Supper by intinction?” –
I’m tempted to reply simply with, “Luke 20:1-8.” But I won’t do that.
But I will ask, why do people want to do the Lord’s Supper with stacks of gold-trimmed plates & hundreds of little plastic cups of grape juice and Melba Toast?
Re: ‘upside’ – It is a way (not THE only way) to “proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” All the other upsides are mere practical considerations, some of which are mentioned in the meta above (e.g. not having to buy or wash hundreds of plastic cups for every time it’s done, etc.)
Rachel: What is “its full due?”
Time to contemplate each of the elements and also the corporate nature of taking the elements together.
I am almost certain, from your comments, that we were members of the same church in KS. We were there when the founding pastor left the PCA to plant a church in the EPC. I believe he is now planting a church for Keller in NYC.
Rachel, we hear the explanation and consecration of the elements _together_, in the same service, on the same day. But at some point, I and you and everyone else present at the time, take and each eat individually, and yet also “together.”
While we _are_ told in scripture to examine ourselves, we are not told in scripture to ‘contemplate each of the elements’ (at least not in some sense specifically separately, I assume you’re intimating here). Not that considering each element by itself is a bad thing to do, but first of all, there’s no accounting for that any way you cut it. Secondly, the body and blood both are required (unless you’re a midieval Roman Catholic, I guess) in the Supper. And they will both be combined in the end, of course.
Even when a congregation sits and holds their pieces of bread and eats them ‘together,’ they are not all popping it into their mouths at exactly the same time. And that’s as it should be. The Body of Christ is an ekklesia, a gathering, of individuals, each fearfully and wonderfully made in the image of God, and in the case of those actually partaking of the Supper, for whom the explanation has been received, hopefully with understanding (i.e. worthily as opposed to “unworthily”).
I am sorry, but I cannot help viewing the objections thus far put forward to the practice as other than Pharisaical in character. It is straining at gnats and swallowing camels.
Bill et al., Westminster Presbytery explained why they did not want intincture to be practiced in an overture to the 38th General Assembly:
Re: the particular church – I’m fairly sure you and I are talking about the same congregation. However, what that founding pastor is doing now has all but zero bearing on why intinction is practiced in the congregation right now. He is now three pastors removed, at least. Surely you recognize shortchanging when see it (aka “guilt by association”).
And, I’m still waiting, hand cupped to ear…Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
I think it is clear that some of the reason for intinction in regard to the Christian world is because of the Roman Catholic view of the Supper. I don’t think that is the view of those who practice it in the PCA or even the Anglican Church. Is there any good reason for practicing it? That’s what I would like to hear.
The best reason that I have heard thus far is that it retains the common cup without the issue of actually having us all put our mouths on the cup and thus sharing germs.
Here are the questions we need to ask about intinction. Where it the biblical command to take the bread and dip the bread into the wine and eat the bread soaked with wine? Or where is the clear and necessary inference that this is the way to receive the elements? There is a command to take the bread and eat the bread. There is a command to drink the wine. Eating and drinking differs from dipping and eating. You may argue that it is not a substantial difference, but it is a difference from what Jesus commands us to do with the two elements (you are also treating the two elements as one and the two actions as one action). Judas dipped his hand in the dish, not the cup (Matthew 26:23) and not in the middle of the institution. I do not think it is relevant.
Ok, so looking at BCO58, specifically 58-5, it says, “Here the bread is to be distributed.” And in our congregation, this is done. The bread is distributed to the elders who will adminster them to the congregation. BCO 58-5 does not specify to whom it is “to be distributed.” It can be assumed that it means “to the communicants,” but it doesn’t say that explicitly, and still, an ordained officer will, after consecration (the setting apart referred to earlier in 58-5) be distributed to the communicants.
So, we’re down to the jots and tittles, now.
While we’re still on 58-5, how many here “give THE cup,” as directed by the same at its very end?
I submit, getting rid of ‘the cup’ is going to be harder than ridding the PCA of intinction.
Bill, your argument that the BCO implies a common cup does not seem to me to be relevant to the argument. Even granted that your argument is correct, one wrong way of doing it does not justify another.
Bill:
You ask that someone cite to you the provisions of the BCO, the Westminster Standards, or the Bible where it is laid out that how the Supper is to be done which in turn would then preclude the practice intinction. I see that others have given somewhat of an answer to that question, but let me refer here again to all three.
The BCO in part 58-5 speaks of distributing the bread and then after the bread has been distributed taking the cup – a separation of the elements. The Confession in 29-3 and the Larger Catechism question and answer 169 both speak of giving both the bread and cup to the communicant – still an argument for separation of the elements. Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; and 1 Corinthians 11:23-25, all depict Christ giving the two elements of the Supper to his disciples first the bread and then after, the wine – a separation of the elements.
So, I think that one can affirm, without question, that a separation of the elements would be a proper way of taking the elements. So the real question is whether or not the words of institution of the Lord’s which speak in the language of a separation of the elements (and the constitution of the PCA) preclude the practice of intinction.
Some who follow the regulative principle of worship will say that since the words of institution speak the language of separation of the elements – that separation is the only way proper. Others as you have yourself suggested will find that such a position is “pharisaical in character. It is straining at gnats and swallowing camels.”
But even if one is not willing to say that intinction is categorically precluded by the Scriptures (or our Constituion), isn’t still clear that the one manner (a separation of the elements) is permissible. And if that is so why would one advocate a more questionable way (intinction)? Why would we not practice the manner of offering the Supper that is certainly more clearly in accord with the Word than by seeking some other way?
The overture that Wes refers to above was answered in the negative, and answered by also giving as grounds that “the administration of the Lord’s Supper is adequately governed by the Scriptures and the Book of Church Order.” Unfortunately, those grounds could be read by those who advocate intinction one way, and by those opposed to it another.
Wes,
I think Tom nailed it on the head. It is so no wine is spilled (pretended to be actual blood), and usually the rest of the wine is consumed by the pastor so none is wasted either. That was the explicit reason in the Methodist church where I grew up.
I think this also explains why so many PCA/Reformed churches do it now. It is High Church. That is a serious movement trying to weed its way in. The Intinction gets rid of the table aspect and introduces a new sacerdotal element. This is the way a lot of thinking on the sacrament is going, and the intinction is a nice “nose of the camel in the door way” kind of thing to do.
Bill, if you attempt to practice the Lord’s Supper by intincture, you are not in fact proclaiming the Lord’s death, as described in 1Cor 11:26. In order to do so, you have to eat the bread AND drink the cup. Slurping isn’t drinking, and if you aren’t drinking, then you aren’t proclaiming.
So, the Scriptures really are explicitly against YOUR practice.
Why emphasize “your”? Because it is not God’s practice. You yourself have admitted that the main reason to take it that way is because YOUR church has this as a tradition. So, it is more about doing things the way you guys do things, than doing it the way the Bible says.
Even your challenge to “show me where the Bible prohibits” belongs to the Lutheran view of worship, not the Reformed view. You must understand that it is from a Reformed perspective that I would ask “show me where the Bible commands it.”
What’s worse for your case is that if there were no other text but the one that I referenced, the Bible would in fact prohibit it as a way of observing the supper. In fact, 1Cor 11:20 makes it plain that if you don’t follow the prescription in that passage, it is not the Lord’s Supper that you are eating at all. So, your long post basically boils down to “Although we call it the Lord’s Supper, we haven’t actually had the Lord’s Supper for longer than anyone can remember.”
So, are you going to go on and on about how others’ concern for the purity of God’s worship is a straining at gnats, and persist in defending innovations that are cemented into traditions that have denied your congregation the Supper for at least a decade? Or are you going to change your practice to obey the Bible, and have the actual Lord’s Supper sometime soon?
“We’ve done it that way for a long time” is a bad reason to disobey God.
I’ll admit I’ve spent way yonder too much time thinking through this subject matter in recent years. As to the biblical evidence against the practice here’s the short answer: 1. The supper is intended to show forth “death” 2. The clearest most consistent symbol of death was that of the blood separated from its flesh. 3. Old Testament sacrifices, blood restrictions, Passover, etc all reinforce this. 4. the method of intinction re-combines the symbols of blood and body destroying the sacrificial imagery
I think there is a lot more that can be said, but these four points of logic seemed to tie up the knot for me. I’m settled that, as a word-picture, intinction is unable to show forth Christ’s death.
Twenty years ago I joined a church in which the communicants gather around one (very long) table. Each person receives from the hand of his neighbor (the first of whom received them from the hand of the minister) bread and a chalice containing wine. Nothing could be finer.
Or, borrowing from Nike: Just do it! (the way God told you to)
Dear Bill,
If I ever plant a church I will be giving you a call. I would LOVE to have an RE like you, brother. Don’t let the schismatics on this site get you down, nor the loosey goosey’s at your own church.
By the way, you all should know that it is the Anglo Catholics in the Anglican tradition who don’t like intinction. As for the RC church, I’ve never been to one so can’t say…
You all really need to read some articles on the RPW (T. David Gordon’s are excellent), and learn the difference between an element of worship and a form. To argue that intinction isn’t a proper element of worship is a category mistake.
My previous post was deleted so I will rephrase and hopefully it will be deemed appropriate:
Several of the folks above who have commented have made statements to the effect that intinction is an error so grave as to undermine the validity of the sacrament. Since many PCA churches practice intinction this amounts to a claim that they are not properly administering the sacraments, which most Protestants have historically held to be a mark of the church. Hence, it seems to me that these comments are “unchurching” such PCA churches.
My question: are you so sure that this practice rises to the level of a Christian “essential,” and how is such a position not schismatic?
As a friend observed in another arena where this subject has been discussed. “”There are two distinct sacramental elements and two distinct sacramental actions which are essential to the Lord’s supper.” The old expositions of the shorter catechism make this clear I think; there are prescribed elements and prescribed actions in the proper observance of the Lord’s supper.
Death involves the seperation of blood from the body. Therefore, to commune upon Jesus’ death the blood-element should be served seperately from the body-element.
Two honest questions, aiming for clarity but not trying to pick a fight:
1) The death-is-separation idea sounds fine and reasonable, but is there any actual Scriptural basis for it? If the bread and juice are presented and picked up separately, does it really matter if they get to the mouth at the same time?
And conversely…
2) “Puritan,” if you are taking such a stringent view of the RPW, would you also argue that using the little plastic cups is “not God’s practice”? I believe that all Scriptural references are to a singular cup.
Full disclosure: Grew up in a church with little *glass* cups (eco-friendly! I guess the Deacons washed them all by hand?) and most recently in a little, underfunded church plant that used intinction because we couldn’t afford the plastic cups.
All. The little plastic cups are not expensive. Even best quality little plastic cups are not that expensive. If anyone wants little plastic cups and thinks little plastic cups are too expensive, I’ll email you where I buy the little plastic cups for our church. I’ve been doing the communion setup since we were a church plant (and yes, we did intinction for a while too, actually we tried a lot of things…) and even then little plastic cups weren’t that expensive, if your church is that small a box will last a year, assuming semi monthly.
In Matthew 26:26-28, God’s Word says, “Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat…’” and “And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you…’” “Eat” and “drink” are commands, not descriptions.
Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25, Our Lord’s Word says of eating the bread, “Do this in remembrance of me,” and of drinking the wine, “Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” Again, those are commands, not descriptions.
So I repeat, practical considerations—such as wanting to do things more efficiently or sanitarily or affordably—are circumstantial. Pastors and sessions are free and responsible to make judgement calls about those sorts of things.
But how does intinction obey our Lord’s commands to “eat” and to “drink”?
And why has this practice been introduced in our circles just—as far as I can tell—in the last decade?
What I really meant to ask is, how did the practice come to be introduced in our circles just—as far as I can tell—in the last decade? I didn’t mean “why” but “how.” I don’t know, so I’m sincerely asking.
Larry, I would like to hear the “why” as well. That was the precise point of this post. Since intinction has only been practiced in conservative presbyterian churches for the past decade or so, why did you do that? What compelling reason was there to make that move? What would you say to those who are not practicing intinction now? Why should they do so?
Ok. As I told a backchannel inquirer earlier, it’s been a busy day. While I was worrying about some here violating the 9th commandment, I was almost certainly violating the 8th (blogging at work). So I’m on my own dime, so to speak. I plan to spend it wisely, though, so I’ll keep it brief (caution: My definition of ‘brief’ is probably longer than yours).
Reading through the comments since my last post, I still haven’t seen anyone make a case, per Bible or BCO or Standards that prohibits it. In fact, Art’s comment above (waaaay back up there) pretty much says it all:
“The overture that Wes refers to above was answered in the negative, and answered by also giving as grounds that “the administration of the Lord’s Supper is adequately governed by the Scriptures and the Book of Church Order.” Unfortunately, those grounds could be read by those who advocate intinction one way, and by those opposed to it another.”
If that’s the case, and clearly it is, then why not submit to the government of GA as it is and let the Supper serve its purpose? It isn’t up to the individual, in the face of the current state of the issue as adjudicated, to assert that it doesn’t in congregations that practice it by intinction. If you want to be Presbyterian, then be Presbyterian. I will. If the upcoming overtures (there are more than one, apparently) on the issue are adjudicated in the affirmative, in other words, banning intinction, as an officer in the PCA, as a regular member, as plain and simple Christian, I would urge my Session to submit to that ruling and change the practice to an accepted one.
I can see no reason from Scripture or right reason why it _should_ be banned, but, the Supper, of the two sacraments Presbyterian/Reformed Christians affirm, and which, of course, Roman Catholics, Orthodox and many other folds of Christ’s flock all agree are true sacraments instituted by the Lord Jesus Himself, should not be the source of division. Unfortunately, unless _someone_ yields, for liberty of conscience, or binding of the same, it will be put to just that: division.
Something’s wrong if that is the case. That THE sacrament instituted by Christ Himelf to _unite_ the visible Church in one common proclamation of His sacrificial death in the hope of His return would devolve into division and strife is a crying shame if ever there was one.
I can’t help but think that the people calling into question the practice of intinction bear the burden of proof that it is unbiblical, and certainly that they bear that burden _prior_ to literally breaking fellowship over the matter. And by that I mean not breaking bread with brothers, for a specific example, at presbytery. It is, practically speaking, a form of not discerning the Body of Christ in brothers and sisters who _do_ practice it this way.
Certainly, Roman Catholics treat us this way by their own practice of Communion, and despite their insistence that they have the authority of the Magesterium on their side of the matter, as a Protestant, I don’t concede that they _do_ have that authority, namely, to treat Protestants as non-believers.
The arguments put forth (thus far here) do not satisfy to establish that intinction is “a wrong way,” to practice the Supper, nor that you “re not in fact proclaiming the Lord’s death, as described in 1Cor 11:26 “. Arguing for a strict interpretation of the word “drink,” here reminds me of Fr. Karl Keating’s Catholic Answers apologists insisting on “This is My body” meaning no less than _exactly_ that. It is the _ very same_ move. These same proponents of the strict, literal interpretation of “drink,” then equivocate on the meaning and interpretation of the words, “the cup,” in BCO58. Where is the consistency in that? One thing is certain. It is certainly expedient to interpret the BCO that way, if you want to make an issue of intinction. But you have to equivocate to do so.
As to how it came about that intinction is practiced in otherwise conservative PCA congregations, one can only speculate. The reality is, the PCA is a young denomination, practically adolescent, even by comparison to the OPC. Its heritage and demographic are conceivably far more ecumenical than say, the Dutch branches of Presbyterian & Reformed Churches, just for one consideration. It is far less insular and hermetic than other “conservative” Presbyterian churches. It’s suffering the same sort of mission creep and dilution of doctrinal purity that seems to occur in any large body of Christians.
Still, I think you could choose other battles to fight, such as the much more real and serious threat of Federal Vision theology, or other more pressing issues than the intinction, which is clearly at this point, left to the discretion of the local Sessions, per the current GA adjudication.
Grace & Peace,
WTB
Bill,
I should ask if Jesus and the disciples practiced the Last Supper via intinction. Did they? What about Paul in Corinthians?
In fact it is certain they didn’t because the practice was invented centuries later. That means the Church has historically not practiced intinction. Yet where it has been practiced is in Roman Catholicism (little) and moreso with Eastern Orthodoxy. The origins of the practice are basically unknown.
So Jesus didn’t do it, Paul didn’t do it, the Church for most of its history has not done it. Luke gives a clear distinction between the giving of the bread and the giving of the cup, where he says (Luke 22:19-20), “And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ And likewise the cup AFTER they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.’”
If they didn’t do it and it has been not a regular practice or long standing practice in Church history, then it would be wrong to say the burden of proof is on those who are ‘against’ intinction. It is the other way around. And the question is why practice it this way? What are the Biblical reasons/arguments for doing so?
Also, if we are talking about the Regulative Principle of Worship, then the statement, “show me where the Bible prohibits it” is a Lutheran view. For Lutherans believe they can do anything in worship as long as they are not prohibited. This was already noted above by “Puritan”. The Reformed view of Worship is that we are to only do in worship that which we are commanded to do or deduced from necessary consequence (i.e. we see the example of it in Scripture).
Deuteronomy 12:31-32 says, “You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the LORD hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods. “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.”
We should take this very seriously, because Nadab and Abihu, “Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them. And fire came out from before the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD.”
Andrew
Never posted here before – but this is a topic that touched on my interest in history.
Jesus and his disciples were eating a passover meal – so the elements (unleavened bread and wine) shouldn’t be tampered with. I am waiting for day when a majority of my own Session would like to restore the use of wine.
Jesus and Paul both separate the elements – so that resolves the issue for me. No intinction.
Now – the Presbyterian history part. The Westminster Directory of Worship is one of my sources for resolving disputed interpretations. I think our Presbyterian forefathers were quite adept at solid interpretations of Scripture.
I will summarize the Westminster Director of Worship.
1. Communion is to be frequently celebrated – but it is up to the Session to determine how often.
2. Communion is to be celebrated after the morning sermon.
3. Public warning should be give the sabbath-day before so that the congregation can properly prepare themselves for the sacrament.
4. The table is to be fenced.
5. The congregation is to sit around a common table (something totally lost in contemporary churches).
6. The minister is to sanctify the elements; the bread is to be broken and ready to be distributed to the congregants. The wine is to be “in large cups.”
7. The minister should read words of institution from the Gospels or 1 Corinthians.
8. The minister is to break the bread and distribute it to the congregants with words of Christ or Paul.
9. After the congregants “take and eat” the bread, the minister is to take the cup, give the command using the words of Christ or Paul, and distribute it to the congregants.
10. The minister is to give thanks to God.
11. A collection is to be taken for the poor.
The Directory does not answer whether the congregants share the “large cups” – or if they pour the wine into their own small cups.
When I have more time on my hands, I will look at the current practice of the Free Church of Scotland, the Free Church Continuing, and the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
Current Presbyterians should be following something close to our Presbyterian forefathers; the Westminster Assembly had such a absolute commitment to the Word, that we can follow their example unless shown to be clearly wrong.
Intinction is clearly not permissible under the totality of the Westminster standards as originally adopted.
I have enjoyed the discussions here!
Bill:
In your most recent comment you say that you haven’t seen anyone make a case, per Bible or BCO or Standards that prohibits intinction. But I think you have stated the issue in an incorrect manner when you look for a prohibition. The regulative principle of worship, as Andrew Barnes notes in his comment, seeks to find in the Scriptures our directions for what we do in worship. We do in worship what we are commanded to do by God or what we can infer we should do as a good or necessary consequence of what the Scriptures teach.
As I said above (with references given), the BCO, the Standards, and the Scriptures do address the issue. But not by saying what is prohibited – but by describing what we are to do – and all speak in the language of a separation of the elements in their consumption (see my comment above).
So I ask the question I asked before: Why would we not practice the manner of offering the Supper that is certainly more clearly in accord with the Word than by seeking some other way?
This is the question I would like to see answered because I don’t see in the Word or in our governing doctrines warrant for intinction, nor do I see why some seem to have a preference for it.
By the way – in regard to the overture addressed by the 38th GA – I was on that GA Overture Committee and I actually did not join in the negative recommendation from the Overture Committee to the GA regarding prohibiting intinction at GA worship services. I thought it was well argued in committee that the Constitution and the Scriptures already bar the practice and therefore, no new prohibition is needed, but I still voted against recommending the overture be answered in the negative as I thought the prohibition would be helpful.
Gen.9:4; Lev.17:11 appear to give good precedent for why a blood and body element should be served seperately, since the life of the flesh is in the blood. Seperating the two means death. Many the union of the two in our stomachs mean we live as the corporate body of Christ
The Apostle Paul was not present when the Lord’s Supper was instituted. He was therefore dependent on someone else to instruct him. The fact that it was the Lord who did so (1 Cor. 11:23), and that he did so in order that Paul might “deliver” accurate information to the Corinthians, indicates that both Jesus and Paul considered it very important for the Corinthians to observe the Lord’s Supper in the same manner as the original institution. If it is not essential that we eat and then drink then why was our Lord so careful to reveal this to this Apostle?
Here is an insightful discussion of the issues that must be addressed:
http://www.barlowfarms.com/index/cm_id/1868301
Barlow asks a good question at the end for which I am still waiting for an answer from those who desire to practice intinction:
To Scott P above,
I was in the Free Church of Scotland for three years. The elders would pass around the bread, and when everyone had received it, we would eat. Then the elders would pass around a common cup (I think there were three or four common cups) filled with WINE, and we would all drink as it passed us.
The common cup thing is pretty gross, especially if you are the last to drink from it. The disciples weren’t drinking from the common cup after 250 others had. With that said, if it weren’t for the sanitary issues, I quite liked the common cup. However, it’s really not about me “liking” it but about what’s biblical.
My take is that the important issue is the remembrance of the atonement using both elements, not in how the elements are ingested. I think when we focus on the actual method of taking the elements, we lose focus of the purpose.
Those who are arguing against intinction, I hope you are also arguing against using grape juice and little plastic cups!
(I realize I’m late to the party, but this is an interesting discussion and, for the most part, everyone has been charitable.)