At a Stated Meeting of the relatively new Ohio Presbytery of the PCA, an overture from a local congregation asking for appointment of a Presbytery study committee on the topic of intinction was approved; given 12 month time line for report.

What is Intinction?

The simple answer comes from Merriam-Webster: the administration of the sacrament of Communion by dipping bread in wine and giving both together to the communicant.

The practice has been common in Roman Catholic churches other than the centuries when only the priest was allowed to drink the wine. Wikipedia tells us this concerning Protestants:

“… intinction is common in some Anglican Churches, which often give the communicant the choice of drinking from the chalice or receiving by intinction. In many Presbyterian, Lutheran, Episcopal, and Methodist churches the communicant, not the minister, dips the host in the chalice. This is the practice in some Baptist and Congregational Churches as well, often using grape juice in place of wine.”

Why has the question come up at this time?

Ohio Presbytery answers this question in the ‘Whereas’ section of their overture:

WHEREAS, intinction was practiced at the opening worship service during the 37th General Assembly in 2009, resulting in an overture from Westminster Presbytery to the 38th General Assembly in 2010;
WHEREAS, prior to the recent GA actions, intinction did not come to the attention of this presbytery, such as in the examination of candidates for the ministry, as well as in the stated views of presbyters;
WHEREAS, questions about intinction were ruled to be out-of-order during an ordination examination at the recent August 28, 2010 Ohio Presbytery meeting in Youngstown;
The issue first came up at the 2009 General Assembly in Orlando when the method was used during one of the worship services during that week. The Westminster overture gave a number of reasons for their request that this method not be used at future General Assembly meetings:

Whereas we are a confessional denomination;
Whereas Chapter 58 of the Book of Church Order has full constitutional authority;
Whereas the method of distributing the elements is prescribed in the Book of Church Order and the constitution specifically separates the distribution of bread and wine;
Whereas the constitution is in full submission to the inspired Word of God and the Word records that our Lord Jesus Christ distributed the elements individually, separately, and discreetly (Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20);
Whereas the practice of dipping the bread in the cup and partaking the elements simultaneously is a practice that is out of accord with Scripture and our constitution;
Therefore be it resolved that Westminster Presbytery overtures the 38th General Assembly to prohibit in the future at General Assembly meetings the practice of intincture that was used at the 37th General Assembly during opening worship service.

At the 2010 General Assembly in Nashville, this overture was answered in the negative.

Next, on August 28, during an ordination examination in Ohio Presbytery, a candidate expressed that he practices intinction. At this point, a member of the Presbytery objected to that line of questioning as it was asking a candidate about a view that was not settled in the denomination. The moderator then ruled that further questions on intinction were out of order, and this ruling was not challenged. The candidate passed his exam and was later ordained and installed.

In presenting the overture on behalf of the Session at Zion Reformed Church, Winesburg, Ohio, Pastor Jason Strong gave several reasons for the intinction study committee, including the fact that the issue has raised confusion about the PCA’s practice with church members and visitors, and that their church needed presbytery’s help to answer the intinction question. The discussion on the floor was relatively brief, and there were no objections when the vote was taken.

The overture contained some specific instructions for the study committee to follow:

That the study committee must, at a minimum, answer the following questions:

1) When and how did the practice of intinction come into the PCA?

2) Is intinction merely a “disputable matter” (Romans 14:1) allowing liberty of conscience in its practice, or is it a practice that is theologically out of accord with Scripture (Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, 1 Corinthians 11:23-26) and our constitution (BCO 58-5)?

3) Does the preservation of the “single cup” in communion theologically trump the keeping of the elements separate?

4) Can candidates for the ministry be examined on intinction, including their views of it?

5) If it is determined that intinction is out of accord with Scripture and our constitution, then what should be done to instruct and assist Sessions and churches in the Presbytery that practice intinction to come back into accord with Scripture and our constitution?

That the study committee must either complete its work one (1) year from the date of the adoption of this overture, or report on its progress and request for an extension with a specific deadline

The following members to the study committee were appointed:
Ruling Elder Rae Whitlock, Grace Central Church, Columbus (Convener)
Ruling Elder Sam Foster, Harvest Church, Medina
Ruling Elder Tim Ling, Zion Reformed Church, Winesburg
Teaching Elder Todd Naille, Granville Chapel, Granville
Teaching Elder Jason Strong, Zion Reformed Church, Winesburg
Teaching Elder Matt Timmons, Ashland

An online search on the topic will reveal one Reformed blog that has a dedicated string to the issue at http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/appropriatness-intinction-regarding-lords-supper-49720/

There are also several other sources from the viewpoint of the mainline denominations that allow the practice:

Presbyterian Church (USA)

There are three options for the Words of Institution in the eucharistic liturgy of the Presbyterian Book of Common Worship: at the Invitation to the Lord’s Table… Presbyterian pastors share their practices:

We say the words of institution at the breaking of bread, immediately before distributing the trays of bread to the servers, then, in the case of the cup, immediately before distributing the cup trays to the servers.

When we do communion by intinction, we say the words for both the bread and cup consecutively (one of the three ministers, followed by another of the ministers) just before distributing the platens and chalices to the serving teams.

PCUSA Congregation decision:

The concern about the length of the service was addressed by having the people come forward to receive communion (by intinction; that is, by dipping the bread in the wine) instead of being served in the pews, thus shortening the service by five to ten minutes.

Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod

Q. What is the LCMS position on the practice of intinction (dipping the bread into the common cup but not drinking) as the only means of receiving Holy Communion?

A. The Synod itself has not taken an official “position” as such on the practice of intinction. Some theologians of the Synod have argued on the basis of Christ’s command to “eat and drink” that the practice of intinction is inconsistent with Biblical and Confessional mandates regarding administration of the Lord’s Supper and is therefore a practice to be avoided and/or discouraged. Few if any, however, have held that the use of intinction renders the Sacrament invalid when the wine is distributed in this way to communicants.

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2623 [Editor’s note: the original URL (link) referenced is no longer valid, so the link has been removed.]

Evangelical Lutheran Church

The most basic question to ask of any method of distribution is how well it responds to Christ’s command to “take and eat” and to “drink from this, all of you….” At Christ’s Last Supper, it is likely that he took a piece of bread, blessed the bread by giving thanks to God (as we do in the eucharistic prayer), broke the bread and gave it to his disciples as they were together at table. It is also likely that he took a cup of wine, blessed it by giving thanks to God, and gave it for the disciples to share by drinking from the cup.

…intinction is dipping the bread into the chalice. This is less desirable because it is not actual drinking. However, if intinction is used, it is preferable to use to use hosts rather than actual bread, in order to preclude crumbs from falling into the chalice, which is not pleasing for the communicants who follow. Problems of this sort can be avoided by having separate chalices for intinction.

http://www.elca.org/Growing-In-Faith/Worship/Learning-Center/FAQs/Communion-Distribution.aspx