“This amendment clarifies what the BCO and our Standards already assume is the Biblical practice, and there is no good argument not to ask our churches to conform to this simple instruction in order to obey the plain Scriptural accounts and to help preserve our liturgical unity together as a denomination.   Therefore, we should approve this amendment to our Constitution.”

(Editor’s note: The 40^th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America approved an amendment to its Book of Church Order 58-5. To be enacted, the proposed amendment must be approved by 2/3 of PCA Presbyteries, and then by the 41^st General Assembly. The following reasons to vote in favor of the amendment were written by TE Chris Hutchinson in preparation for the discussion and vote in Blue Ridge Presbytery.)

The Amendment:  Amend BCO 58-5 by adding a final sentence after the words, “While the minister is repeating these words, let him give the cup”, as follows:  “As Christ has instituted the Lord’s Supper in two sacramental actions, the communicants are to eat the bread and drink the cup in separate actions.”

REGARDING THE INTINCTION DEBATE

1.  Definition of Intinction:  dipping the bread of the Lord’s Supper into the cup so that worshipers partake of both elements at the same time.

2.  The Amendment:  Amend BCO 58-5 by adding a final sentence after the words, “While the minister is repeating these words, let him give the cup”, as follows:  “As Christ has instituted the Lord’s Supper in two sacramental actions, the communicants are to eat the bread and drink the cup in separate actions.”

3.   History of this Amendment

a) The matter came to the Overtures Committee on which RE Frank Root and I both served.  I came into the discussion unconvinced that this amendment was helpful, but after listening to the arguments, decided to vote in favor of this BCO amendment.  Frank voted against.

b) The Overtures Committee voted the amendment down narrowly, but those who opposed it consisted of two very distinct groups: Those who thought intinction should be allowed and those who thought that the BCO already forbid it clearly, so that no amendment was necessary.   The BCO reads now:

58-5. The table, on which the elements are placed, being decently covered, and furnished with bread and wine, and the communicants orderly and gravely sitting around it (or in their seats before it), the elders in a convenient place together, the minister should then set the elements apart by prayer and thanksgiving.  The bread and wine being thus set apart by prayer and thanksgiving, the minister is to take the bread, and break it, in the view of the people, saying:  That the Lord Jesus Christ on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it, gave it to His disciples, as I, ministering in His name, give this bread to you, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” (Some other biblical account of the institution of this part of the Supper may be substituted here.)

Here the bread is to be distributed.  After having given the bread, he shall take the cup, and say:  In the same manner, He also took the cup, and having given thanks as has been done in His name, He gave it to the disciples, saving, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Drink from it, all of you.”  While the minister is repeating these words, LET HIM GIVE THE CUP.

58-6. Since believers are to act personally in all their covenanting with the Lord, it is proper that a part of the time occupied in the DISTRIBUTION OF THE ELEMENTS should be spent by all in silent communion, thanksgiving, intercession and prayer.

c) The matter then went to the floor of G.A., where the minority report (supporting the amendment) passed by a mere 14 votes, thus becoming the main motion, which then passed; and hence it now comes before the Presbyteries.   If 2/3 of the Presbyteries pass it, then it will go back to the 2013 G.A., where it must once again muster a majority vote to become part of the BCO.

d) The Facilitating Committee voted 5-2 to recommend to the Presbytery that we vote to approve this amendment.   While there were different levels of passion regarding the issue on the FC, the clear majority believed this to be a helpful, clarifying amendment.

4.   Defining the Debate

Although we might question the importance or timing or even the politics of this amendment (that its narrow passing at GA disqualifies it), those questions are not before us today.  The matter is now before the presbyteries and their votes will determine the will of the Church.  Likewise, questions such as using grape juice or frequency are simply not relevant to this particular discussion.

The only question is whether the PCA should allow intinction or not.   Whether we would have chosen the debate or not, the question is now before us, and so we should simply consider whether intinction is Biblical or not, and hence whether this amendment would helpfully clarify our Constitution on the matter.

5.  Catholicity

Some might argue that we should look to the larger church on this question, or other traditions, and do what we can to conform our practice to theirs.  And if we do that, in fact, we do find other traditions practicing intinction.

But that is not the Reformed approach to matters of worship or ecclesiology, even on secondary matters.  We look to Scripture alone and seek God’s mind on a matter of worship (WCF 1.6, 9-10; 26.1).  For example, if we were to look to the larger Christian tradition on church polity, then we might conclude that we should have bishops, as the majority of Christian traditions have.  But the Reformed look to Scripture, which we find is plain that jurisdictional power is always to be a joint, and not a several power.  In other words, Scripture plainly teaches that all elders are in fact already bishops, and so we gladly stand with Scripture and against other Christian traditions on this question.  In fact, we wish they would conform to us.

So it is with the Sacraments.  While we might learn from other traditions on the Sacraments, we have no obligation to conform ourselves to them.  Thus, since Scripture Alone is our authority on the question of intinction, we start and end there, as best we are able.   In fact, the better we are able to conform to God’s Word, the more catholic we are being.

6.  The Synoptic Gospel accounts

Matthew 26:  ²⁶ Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” ²⁷ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, ²⁸ for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14:  ²² And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” ²³ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. ²⁴ And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

Luke 22:  ¹⁹ 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.” ²⁰ And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

We make two simple observations about all three Gospel accounts of Jesus’ institution of the Lord’s Supper: 1) First, Jesus distributed the bread, which they partook of, then He distributed the cup; the elements were taken separately; 2) Jesus gives the command to “drink,” not “dip.”  While this may seem minor, is there any compelling reason to depart from this simple command that we drink the wine?  Could this action be important, that the wine be poured into our mouths?

7.  I Corinthians 11  ¹⁷ But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. ¹⁸ For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, ¹⁹ for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. ²⁰ When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. ²¹ For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. ²² What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.

²³ For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, ²⁴ and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” ²⁵ In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” ²⁶ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

²⁷ Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. ²⁸ Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. ²⁹ For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. ³⁰ That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. ³¹ But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. ³² But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

³³ So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another— ³⁴ if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come.

We wish to make four observations about this important text:

1) First, Paul speaks about that which he “received from the Lord” and then “passes on” to the Corinthians.  He is teaching them about the standard, catholic practice of observing the Lord’s Supper.

2) Second, the context is one of church unity (see also I Corinthians 10:16-17).   The Corinthians were partaking in such a way that caused their unity to be strained, and thus were subject to God’s discipline.  In short, they were not loving one another as they should.

3) In so describing what he received from the Lord, Paul clearly describes partaking of the bread and of the wine separately. This is the plain Scriptural account of how we are to practice the Lord’s Supper, and even if we do not understand why, it is our duty as humble recipients to conform to it.   In fact, our Standards simply assume that this is what we will do (WCF 29.3 & WLC 169).

4) Paul actually says that proclaiming the Lord’s death comes about by “eating the bread and drinking the cup.”  Two actions, not one.  The same applies to being sure that we not “eat OR drink” judgment unto ourselves.  Two verbs, not one.  In fact, the two verbs, “eat and drink” are repeated four separate times.  Why should we not do just that?

8.  The theology behind two partakings

We have thus seen that the plain reading of the Scriptural accounts.   Some have speculated as to the importance of separating the two partakings,that is the theology behind taking the bread and wine separately.  I am not personally convinced by these arguments, and confess ignorance as to its importance.  But that is to not say that it is not important – only that we need not fully understand it in order to conform to the plain teaching that the bread and wine are to be taken separately.  Since it is so plain, why would we not want to follow its instruction?

To put in the terms of the Regulative Principle of worship to which we all hold as elders in the PCA, if the partaking of the Sacraments is an Element of worship, then we are NOT free to tinker with it as might like (WCF 26.1).  If the distribution is a mere Circumstance of worship, then it is a matter of adiaphora, a matter indifferent.  But the burden of proof is upon those who would make it a Circumstance of worship, since the Scriptural accounts make it plain that the bread and wine are to be taken separately.

THREE OBJECTIONS:

9.  Objection One:  the Common Cup

Some churchmen argue for intinction because it more easily supports the practice of a Common Cup, which they argue is even more important than separating the elements, as I Corinthians 11 clearly states to do.  They argue this from the Gospel accounts, as well as from a certain reading of I Corinthians 10, which should inform our understanding of I Corinthians 11.  I think the only thing that might be said about this is that this amendment simply does not address the Common Cup.  It does not forbid the use of a Common Cup if that is a particular Session’s conviction.  They would simply need to drink from it, as did the original disciples, rather than dipping their bread into it.  That is how I grew up doing it.

10.  Objection Two:  Shut-ins

Some have argued that we should allow for intinction because of those who are shut in, or unable to swallow or hold a cup.  I am sympathetic to such arguments, and have myself recently administered a last Lord’s Supper to a delightful saint by use of a small sponge.  But that is what we can do, and in any case, such situations are the exception, not the rule.  This amendment is largely dealing with the public gathering and worship of the Church, not taking the Supper to shut ins.  I doubt that this amendment forbids such gracious flexibility in such cases.

11.   Objection Three:  too particular

Finally, and to me, this is the strongest and most compelling objection, and thus perhaps needing the clearest response.   Some have argued that this amendment is too nitpicky.  And this is where many of may be, and in fact, was my attitude going into this debate at G.A.  Why bother with this?  Is it really that important?   Well, again, whether it is or not is not for us to question today, as God’s providence as determined to put this before us.

But I think it raises a larger question, and that is the degree of conformity in worship we should both expect and long for as a denomination.  As you know, we do not have a binding Directory of Worship, except on the sealing ordinances, the Sacraments.  There is a great degree of variety in worship within the PCA, such that one hardly knows what to expect.     This amendment does not affect that larger variety of worship.  But it is one small way of affirming that we are a Reformed church and our worship is cheerfully regulated by the New Testament.  It is a commitment to simplicity and faith in God’s Word, rather than innovation or pragmatic concerns.  And it is a small step towards catholicity, that is towards one another, that we have covenanted to work together in one denomination as a small part of Christ’s wider body; and as such we agree to submit to one another and conform our practices to promote unity within the PCA.  In fact, Paul assumes such an attitude as he wrote to the Corinthians (e.g. I Cor. 16:1:   Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do.).  And in fact several brothers speaking on the floor of G.A, who practice intinction, said they would do just that.  They said that if this amendment passed, they would conform their practice to what the Church asks.     Such statements filled my heart with joy.  It is an example of brothers dwelling together in unity, and agreeing to practice the Lord’s Supper the way the Reformed church of Jesus has always practiced it.  That is all that this amendment does.

12.   Conclusion

In conclusion, then, this amendment clarifies what the BCO and our Standards already assume is the Biblical practice, and there is no good argument not to ask our churches to conform to this simple instruction in order to obey the plain Scriptural accounts and to help preserve our liturgical unity together as a denomination.   Therefore, we should approve this amendment to our Constitution.

(Editor’s note: The following are taken from the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger Catechism.)

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXIX. – Of the Lord’s Supper.

1. Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein He was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of His body and blood, called the Lord’s Supper, to be observed in His Church, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of Himself in His death; the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto Him; and, to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him, and with each other, as members of His mystical body.

2. In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same: so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one, only sacrifice, the only propitiation for all the sins of His elect.

3. The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to declare His word of institution to the people; to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation.

4. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other alone; as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people, worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about, for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use; are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.

5. The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.

6. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ’s body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yea, of gross idolatries.

7. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

8. Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Him, so are they unworthy of the Lord’s table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto.

Westminster Larger Catechism

Question 169: How has Christ appointed bread and wine to be given and received in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper?

Answer: Christ has appointed the ministers of his Word, in the administration of this sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, to set apart the bread and wine from common use, by the word of institution, thanksgiving, and prayer; to take and break the bread, and to give both the bread and the wine to the communicants: who are, by the same appointment, to take and eat the bread, and to drink the wine, in thankful remembrance that the body of Christ was broken and given, and his blood shed, for them.

Chris Hutchinson is a Teaching Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Pastor of Grace Covenant Presbyterian Church in Blacksburg, Virginia.