The Trouble with Intinction - by Ryan Biese
Editorial Note: I benefited greatly from the conversation with greater minds, TEs Aldo Leon and George Sayour as we interacted and responded to the recent Presbycast episode here.
Last week, the most significant, influential, and important podcast in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) welcomed two teaching elders to discuss the practice of intinction in the PCA.
Intinction describes a method of observing the eucharist in which the communicants are not given the cup, but instead are instructed to dip the bread into the cup and take them together. This deviates from the ordinary Reformed practice at the Lord’s Table in which communicants are given bread to eat and a cup to drink.
Teaching Elder Derek Radney of Piedmont Triad Presbytery made the case for why he leads his congregation in observing the sacrament by means of intinction. Teaching Elder Geoff Gleason of Savannah River Presbytery argued churches should observe the sacrament according to the method set forth in the PCA Book of Church Order (BCO).
I. Why Does This Matter?
In the grand scheme of things, whether we sip or dip at the Lord’s Table may seem like a matter of liturgical-theological minutiae. Many faith traditions observe the eucharist by means of dipping rather than sipping; I was reared in such a tradition.
However, among Reformed churches observing this practice is an aberration. For many in the PCA, the tolerance and aggressive defense of intinction is symptomatic of a deeper issue: a latitudinarian impulse that reveals a lack of submission to the brethren and disregard of the BCO.
Thus my concern here is not primarily whether one has two elements: bread and wine or something approaching a eucharistic smoothie, but rather what the acceptance and proliferation of intinction in PCA churches indicates about our commitment to our Constitutional Standards.
II. The Radney Intinction Position
On the “Presburg Colloquy” of September 21, Radney explains his church practices intinction because it was pragmatically more suitable for their context than the mode of serving the Lord’s supper as set forth in the BCO.
Radney explained he finds many verbs and variations in the Gospels regarding the institution of the Lord’s Supper. It seems the primary importance in his position is to eat the meal; whether the meal includes bread and cup or bread dipped in a cup is not of great significance: “Jesus instituted communion as a sacrament of the church by commanding one action, the sharing of a covenantal meal,” says Radney.
In addition to the debate with TE Gleason, TE Radney provides us with a “short” blog post outlining his position that intinction is permissible. In his blog, Radney asserts there has been “no formal decision by the General Assembly to rule out the practice,” which he believes provides the latitude for his position.
On that basis, combined with some “differences in the accounts of the Last supper” Radney seems to conclude it is permissible for congregations and courts of the PCA to observe the sacrament by a method other than what is set forth in the BCO.
While Radney argument is more complex and nuanced on his blog and on the Presbycast episode, I observed three crucial points to justify his position that intinction is permissible:
Intinction was pragmatically more appropriate for his context.
There is variation among the Supper accounts, but the main command is to eat a covenant meal together.
The General Assembly has never explicitly ruled out the practice of intinction.
III. Being Presbyterian in Doctrinal Disagreements
On the podcast, Radney argued disagreement over the mode of observing the Supper is not a core issue. He lamented those who reject the practice of intinction and regard it as an expression of a desire for “innovative and unbiblical methods for doing ‘churchy stuff.’” He accused those whom he denounced as “guardians of our standards” for their “fear and suspicion” over a “Level Three Issue where we can disagree.”
But may we simply “disagree” on intinction and move forward as a denomination? By what authority does anyone assert that is an acceptable course? No single teaching elder may decree that the method of observing the sacraments is a matter of latitude in the PCA. That is is a matter for the church courts.
While some teaching elders may desire to have latitude on matters stipulated in the BCO, that is not the way it works in the PCA. As former Standing Judicial Commission Chairman TE Fred Greco frequently reminds people: you cannot take exception to the Book of Church Order.
On the podcast, Radney explained how he brought the Baptist Church he served into the PCA. It seems one side of this debate may be exhibiting a bit of lingering baptist-independency tendencies.
IV. Bringing the BCO to Bear
On the podcast Radney suggested the way to handle these disagreements is by requesting investigations and bringing charges in the church courts. I disagree; I do not believe the church courts are our first resort, but our last. I would much rather patiently exchange blogs, articles, tweets, podcasts, and other media in this debate in hopes of persuading brothers to abide by the BCO and be faithful to their ordination vows. Sending off a 40-5 or 31-2 report to a presbytery should be a last resort.
I want to give Radney the benefit of the doubt; he indicated on the podcast he was not trained in a Reformed seminary, so I do not know how well he understands the PCA Book of Church Order and the way it relates to church practice.
While Radney has pointed out there are some things that are less clear in terms of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, that does not mean elders in the PCA are free to observe the Lord’s Supper by any method if they find a biblical verse to support their preferred method.
In the Presbyterian Church in America, our BCO is our ‘policy and procedures manual.’ When it speaks to a matter on which there is vagueness in the Scripture, the BCO settles the issue for our practice in the PCA:
The Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, together with the formularies of government, discipline, and worship are accepted by the Presbyterian Church in America as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice (BCO 29-1).
That means when the BCO tells us to do something, even if we have found an obscure or unclear text that seems to suggest we have the option to do it differently, we do not have that liberty within the PCA. If a man believes he cannot abide by the interpretation of the BCO (i.e. the “standard exposition of the teachings of Scripture” as accepted by the PCA), he has two options: overture to change the BCO or leave the PCA. He does not have the authority to disregard the BCO or decree it to be simply a tertiary issue not worth getting excited over.
Radney insists the General Assembly has not forbidden the practice of intinction; he’s wrong. He is correct, however, in that the General Assembly has never explicitly stated, “thou shalt not dip thy bread into thy wine.” But nonetheless the General Assembly has explicitly stated what a minister shall do in administration of the Lord’s Supper:
He is to set apart the bread an wine by prayer and thanksgiving
He is to break the bread
He is to read the scripture
The bread is to be distributed
After the bread is given, the minister is to take the cup and read the scripture
He is to give the cup to the communicants
While Radney’s personal interpretation may see a great deal of variation and ambiguity in the Gospels on how many actions are involved in the command to do this, that is not the interpretation upon which we have agreed as the Presbyterian Church in America. Our BCO requires the bread and wine to be distributed separately.
Sure, it doesn’t say you cannot dip the bread into the cup. But it does require the churches and the courts of the PCA to keep them separate. If the people, upon receiving them, want to mix themselves a sacramental smoothie, that is an opportunity for instruction. But that is not something ordained officers in the PCA may encourage.
V. Ministering With Integrity
The reason intinction matters is not because it is the end of the world if someone dips a bit of bread into wine in the middle of a worship service, but because of what the practice indicates about the commitment of officers to our Constitutional Standards.
When the BCO uses imperatives such as take and shall, the associated actions are not optional; when the BCO sets forth an order and sequence of events, it is not proper for ordained officers in the PCA to revise that order or compress that sequence.
When elders are willing to circumvent and compress the clear instructions and requirements of the BCO in any area, that reflects a grave breach of trust. We cannot have unity if elders - to suit their own preferences, aberrant theological positions, or merely pragmatic personal circumstances - disregard any part of the BCO.
Radney acknowledged on the podcast:
“If we write this into the BCO as out of bounds and people want to keep doing it, then, right, you have to discipline that, I get that.”
He’s right. While an explicit prohibition of intinction is not written into the BCO, the positive commands of BCO Chapter 58 forbid church courts from serving the supper by means of intinction. Contrary to Radney’s baseless and uncharitable assertion, it is not “fear and suspicion” driving this concern, but rather the imperatives of the BCO.
Elders have sworn “subjection to [their] brethren in the Lord” and that they “approve of the form of government and discipline of the Presbyterian Church in America.” Those vows demand submission to the requirements of our BCO. How can brothers “adorn the profession of the Gospel in [their] manner of life, and to walk with exemplary piety before the flock” if they are disregarding the requirements of our General Assembly regarding the administration of the Lord’s Table?
Obedience, faithfulness, and integrity are not third tier issues. They are essential to a healthy, peaceful, and pure denomination.
VI. Ministering With Unity
I admire Radney’s concern that unity, humility, and charity be expressed in our coming to the Lord’s Table at General Assembly. I suggest a first step toward unity, charity, and humility would be for ministers and sessions who find themselves or their practices out of accord with the requirements and prescriptions of our Constitutional Standards (e.g. BCO 58-5) to repent of their neglect of their duties in this area and instead abide by the BCO.
If, however, men do not want to abide by the BCO, there are other faith communions that do provide more latitude (e.g. CREC or EPC). But in the PCA we cannot have unity when men demand the latitude to disregard our agreed upon rules. And to demand such latitude in the PCA is the opposite of humility and charity and it destroys trust, good faith, and unity. Radney deserves the last word:
We all bear responsibility for living in a way that engenders trust.
ncG1vNJzZmiqlpfEpLKNrKybq6SWsKx6wqikaKhfqbWmedOrpq6anJp6uLXToWSipqSeu6TAyKil