Narrative in the Bible is always descriptive, in that it describes for us what happened. Additionally, it’s sometimes prescriptive, in that it tells us what to do and/or how to do it. It is the task of the exegete to know the difference. The committee, in its report, fails to even address or even acknowledge the difference.

Preface

In November 2010, the Ohio Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) erected an ad interimstudy committee on the matter of intinction(1), in response to an overture from the session of one of its member churches, Zion Reformed in Winesburg, Ohio.

On February 4, 2012, the committee completed its work and submitted its final report to the full presbytery for consideration. The presbytery received the committee’s report and dismissed them with thanks. A motion was then made for the presbytery to adopt the report as its own. After debate, this motion was defeated.

Having served as a member of this committee, I submit this dissenting response for the consideration of the Ohio Presbytery, her churches and sessions, along with all other presbyteries, churches, and sessions of the Presbyterian Church in America.

(Please note: this does not constitute a full “minority report.” It only seeks to show the majority’s errors in coming to its findings and to demonstrate that they have not sufficiently proven their conclusion that the administration of the Lord’s Supper by intinction is “out of accord with Scripture.”)

Not a “disputable” matter?

The committee’s report asserts that intinction is “not a disputable matter… left to each to decide by way of conscience.”(2) A look at the history of the practice, however, shows otherwise.

Historical data confirmed by the committee shows:
· that intinction has been practiced in Christian churches since, at the latest, the fourth century A.D.(3),
· that intinction was found to have been practiced in both the Eastern and Western church traditions (4),
· that intinction was practiced in some early Reformed churches (5),
· that intinction was present in congregations of the Presbyterian Church in the United States and the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod – two of the PCA’s predecessor denominations – since the mid-to-late 20th century (6),
· and that the practice of intinction continues in PCA congregations today (7).

Given historical disputes regarding this mode of Communion’s administration and its continued practice in the church to this day, it stands to reason that this is indeed a “disputable matter.” The assertion that this matter is not disputable is, in fact, contradicted by the committee’s own historical findings. With a long history the practice of intinction (despite an equally-long history of disputes concerning it), and its span over multiple centuries, geographical locations, and theological traditions, all demonstrated by the committee’s work, it seems that history argues in favor of the matter being “disputable.”

Is It “Drink”-ing?

As recorded in the Gospels, Christ personally instituted the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. He gave his disciples bread with the command, “take, eat; this is my body,” and gave them a cup, saying “drink of it, all of you.” Jesus told us to “drink.” This much is undisputed. Regarding the matter of intinction, the committee’s report asserts that drinking is absent in this mode of administration. In order to rightly make this assertion, however, the committee must actually demonstrate that drinking is absent. They failed to do this.

Indeed, the committee cited numerous biblical passages that demonstrate that Christ gave the command to “drink” in our partaking of this sacrament, as well as those that show that the early church “drank” when they partook. Again, this is undisputed.

The report, however, fails to interact with texts like Mark 15:36 (cf. Matthew 27:48), which says this:

“And someone ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink, saying, ‘Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down.’” (ESV, emphasis mine)

Thus, it can reasonably be concluded that the word “drink,” as used in the New Testament, can apply to the intake and consumption of liquid, regardless of the instrument of the liquid’s delivery.

(If one wishes to press further and assert that we are commanded to drink from “the cup,” that one must, to be consistent, also concede that we must drink from a common cup. That will be addressed later in this response.)

We can further conclude, then, from Mark 15:36, Matthew 27:48, and the light of human reason that both the eating of bread and the drinking of wine are indeed taking place when the Lord’s Supper is administered by intinction. With this being the case, the majority’s assertion that drinking is absent in intinction is shown to be made by way of inconsistent exegesis. They have not proven their case.

With it being demonstrated above that intinction is indeed a disputable matter and that it can reasonably be concluded that both eating and drinking are indeed taking place in its practice, the committee’s historical and biblical conclusions are shown to be insufficient to declare the practice “out of accord with Scripture.”(8) That being the case, congregations in the PCA and their Sessions should continue to be afforded liberty to practice intinction in their administration of the Lord’s Supper.

Additional Observations

While the above observations and arguments are enough to demonstrate that the majority’s findings are inconclusive, the minority has a number of additional concerns and observations.

1) Imperative verbs and how they apply: The committee’s report relies on an inconsistent exegetical method, applying the imperative verb (“drink”) to an implied indirect object (the wine), but not to the direct object (“it,” being the cup). If “drinking” is absent in intinction, consistency in the exegesis that brought the majority to this conclusion would demand that any receptacle other than a common cup be likewise judged “out of accord with Scripture.”

2) Biblical narrative – description vs. prescription: Narrative in the Bible is always descriptive, in that it describes for us what happened. Additionally, it’s sometimes prescriptive, in that it tells us what to do and/or how to do it. It is the task of the exegete to know the difference. The committee, in its report, fails to even address or even acknowledge the difference. Instead, they assume that Scripture’s descriptions of the Supper’s mode of administration are also prescriptive without actually proving that to be the case.

3) The theological implications of the use of one cup: The committee was tasked with answering the question (among others) “[d]oes the preservation of the ‘single cup’ in communion theologically trump the keeping of the elements separate.”(9) While the minority would concur with the majority’s answer of “no,” the minority would further affirm that neither of these two aspects of the Supper’s practice “trumps” the other. They are not in competition, and the question that Zion’s session posed to the committee improperly pits the two against each other.

The majority also fails to interact with Paul’s emphasis on the unity of the body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 10-12. In these chapters, the Apostle lays out for his readers a rich theology of the church’s oneness in Christ, often citing the fact that the believers drink from “one cup,” both spiritually and physically (see 10:4, 10:16, and 11:25-28). The committee failed to even consider Paul’s words here when answering the question regarding the single cup, and instead assume that “some of the intended spiritual benefits” are lost in intinction(10) (again, using the faulty assertion that “drinking” is absent in the practice). The minority considers Paul’s words to the Corinthian church regarding the church’s unity shown in partaking from one cup more compelling than such an assumption.

4) Problematic supporting evidence: Some of the evidence used by the committee in its report seems to actually weaken their position. For instance, they cite an overture that Westminster Presbytery made to the 39th General Assembly which sought to prohibit the use of intinction at further meetings of the General Assembly. That overture did not make it to the floor of General Assembly for consideration. The mere existence of this overture certainly isn’t evidence against the practice of intinction. Additionally, the committee cites the continued practice of intinction across many centuries, traditions, and geographical regions – despite objections – as if that somehow speaks against the practice. No convincing arguments were given as to why this might be the case.

Concluding thoughts

The Lord Jesus gave us this meal so that, among other things, we could be reminded of and celebrate our unity in him. Unity, however, does not necessarily require uniformity of practice across congregational lines. We see diversity of practice in myriad ways in the PCA: how we order our worship, the music that we sing, the way we administer the sacrament of Baptism, and other ways. It is a violation of the Regulative Principle of Worship to require uniformity where the Word of God does not. The minority affirms, along with the majority, that “[t]he Word of God is the only rule by which any judgment concerning orthodoxy should be measured.”(11)

Our own Book of Church Order says:

“Since the Holy Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice, the principles of public worship must be derived from the Bible, and from no other source.” (47-1, emphasis mine)

“The Lord Jesus Christ has prescribed no fixed forms for public worship but, in the interest of life and power in worship, has given His Church a large measure of liberty in this matter.” (47-6)

It is not the minority’s goal to preserve the practice of intinction in the Ohio Presbytery and in the PCA as an end unto itself, nor does the minority even find it to necessarily be a preferable mode of the administration of Communion for every church. The minority’s concern is that, absent conclusive Scriptural arguments and evidence against it, liberty to practice it continues to be afforded, and that without the threat of suspicion or harassment from those who do not. Moreover, it is the minority’s desire to see greater unity around the Table of our Lord between brothers and sisters in the PCA, even with diversity of practice.

Respectfully submitted,

Raenald D. (Rae) Whitlock
Ruling Elder, Grace Central Presbyterian Church, Columbus, OH

(1) “Intinction” was defined in the original overture from the session of Zion Reformed Church as “the practice of dipping the bread in the cup and partaking the elements simultaneously.”
(2) Ohio Presbytery Intinction Study Committee Report, p. 14
(3) Ibid, p. 3
(4) Ibid, p. 3
(5) Ibid, p. 4
(6) Ibid, p. 4
(7) Ibid, p. 4
(8) Ohio Presbytery Intinction Study Committee Report, p. 16
(9) Ohio Presbytery Intinction Study Committee Report, p. 15
(10) Ibid, p. 14
(11) Ibid, p. 7