Dr. Davis is trying to make the intinction debate an issue about people, but the truth is that this isn’t about people; it’s primarily about ceremonial representations of eucharistic theology. Secondarily, and perhaps no less significantly, it’s about the authority of the Church to ensure that the Lord’s service is performed in a manner that is most consistent with Scripture.

I have written on the topic of Presbyterians and intinction before so there is a degree to which little I say below will be fresh. However, given the recent piece by Dr. Clair Davis I feel some things need restating and emphasizing. I am concerned that Dr. Davis, by framing his argument in terms of diversity, has used precisely the type of rhetoric our theologically liberal enemies tend to use to justify all sorts of unbiblical behavior. It’s an aggressive tactic intended to shut down any argument before it starts by making objections, no matter how carefully worded, seem small-minded and bigoted. I have no concern whatsoever about being seen as either (those who know me know I am neither) so I’m not going to bother with being overly cautious.

Plainly stated, though I respect Dr. Davis’ office as minister in the church as well as thank him for his years of service to us all- especially in his teaching capacity- I am convinced he is wrong about intinction and am disappointed in his chosen manner of argument which glosses over the topic at hand, turning what should be a theological discussion into a morass of sentiment. Additionally, I am surprised that someone who has made such an in depth study of the history of the Church should seem untroubled by a ceremony that has never been acceptable in Reformed circles and was, as numerous presbyteries have observed, condemned in the Western Church from the Council of Clermont in 1095.

In his piece Dr. Davis is trying to make the intinction debate an issue about people, but the truth is that this isn’t about people; it’s primarily about ceremonial representations of eucharistic theology. Secondarily, and perhaps no less significantly, it’s about the authority of the Church to ensure that the Lord’s service is performed in a manner that is most consistent with Scripture.

As I observed in my earlier post, intinction arose in a climate heavily steeped in the concept of the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament. I am careful here to note the difference between the presence of Christ in the elements of the sacrament and the presence of Christ to the faithful when they receive the sacrament. The Reformers were always emphatic that Christ is truly present to His people when they receive the bread and wine with faith but were equally determined that the doctrine of physical presence in the elements themselves- transubstantiation as articulated by Rome and confirmed at the Council of Trent- was not scriptural. There is no change of the elements though Christ is truly present.

What this meant for liturgy was that any practice reverencing the elements was disallowed. In origin, intinction is one of these practices. In treating the wine as though it were too precious to be spilled, the idea that the element had now become the literal blood of Christ was emphasized. That Presbyterian ministers who practice intinction are not likely to believe this is hardly significant at this juncture. The truth of the matter is that intinction has a built-in theological assumption about the nature of the elements.

This is because how we do what we do says a great deal about what we mean when we do it. The vast majority of churches which practice intinction are either Roman Catholic or Anglo-Catholic Anglican. They believe in the Real Presence doctrine as articulated by Rome (at Trent and later). If presbyteries recognized the theological significance of intinction in the wider Church I believe they would find more than just cause to declare intinction an inappropriate practice in a Reformed church.

The failure to see the issue for what it is can only be related to the failure of the seminaries to provide adequate liturgical instruction. If young seminarians were taught about the history of liturgy, ceremonial being an integral part thereof, no one would dream of instituting intinction in their church; this debate wouldn’t even be happening. That I here choose not to touch on the exegetical question relating to Christ’s two separate actions at the Last Supper is a direct result of the sheer obviousness of the implications of intinction as a ceremony.

The second significant issue that arises out of this debate relates to the authority of the Church as institution to govern her worship. It is clear that certain practices which are found in other quarters of the Church are not common in Presbyterian circles. There are solid theological as well as historical reasons for this. For example, the Reformers considered the ceremony of the fraction to be a necessary part of the eucharist but not so the individual elevation of the elements. What is meant by “elevation” is not simply lifting up – clearly the bread must be lifted for it to be broken in the sight of the congregation – but elevation above the head of the minister. This action was forbidden because it was associated with adoration of the elements.

Is it reasonable for one ceremony associated with unscriptural eucharistic theology to be disallowed and another permitted? If intinction is allowed, will elevations follow? Genuflection, perhaps? Making the sign of the cross over the elements at the Words of Institution? I’m sure these actions would be considered at the very least problematic. I don’t fault Dr. Davis for wanting to be sensitive to the consciences of ministers but I can’t help but wonder if his line of argument would have the Presbyterian church permit a kind of ritualist movement. There is a legitimate Reformed ceremonial but intinction does not belong to this category.

Additionally, I find Dr. Davis’ intrusion of the perennial question about wine or grape juice and the common cup to be less than helpful. It muddies the debate at hand by putting a ceremony affecting the meaning of the sacrament in the same category as the substance of the elements themselves. I suppose I should say now that my personal preference is for wine and a common cup but I don’t for a second believe that using grape juice in individual cups alters the meaning of the sacrament at reception. Intinction, however, does alter its meaning because of the rationale for its performance- both in the past and in the present day.

Dr. Davis argues that amending the BCO to rule out intinction would be divisive and damaging. I argue that not to do so would in fact be even more divisive and damaging. In permitting a practice that is both theologically questionable and foreign to the Reformed churches, yet another barrier to unity in the truth would be created. Can it be reasonably expected that any minister committed to Reformed theology and polity would object to correction from his brethren? In permitting what seems so small an exception to accepted Presbyterian practice the gates are opened to all sorts of “minor” deviations. The already delicate relationship between the Old School and the New School (a still apt description of the situation, I think) would be irreparably damaged. With the continuance of this type of toleration, fragmentation would be the inevitable result.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the 2/3 majority needed to amend the BCO will be obtained. In the end, intinction will be permitted; other foreign practices are likely to follow. All will be done in the name of charity. Real theological debate will be swamped by much talk of unity and brotherhood. Inevitably, laxity in small things will become laxity in greater things. We’ve seen it before. In this climate of acceptance I can’t wait for someone to start wearing a chasuble. Any takers?

Evan McWilliams is a member of Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Lakeland, Fla., is an architectural historian, and a Ph.D. candidate at the University of York in the UK. This article appeared in his blog, Inscrutable Being, and is used with permission.