The defeated proposal would only have added a clarification to the BCO for those who felt the language of the book was not clear that intinction should not be practiced. Many who voted against the proposed BCO change did so because they felt there was no need for clarification; the book is already clear.

Since byFaith Magazine announced that enough Presbyteries had voted NO to a BCO change that would make clear that intinction was not allowed to be practiced in the PCA, I have seen a number of comments on both blogs and Facebook posts that indicate some (perhaps many) believe that the PCA has given its approval to the practice. It has not.

The defeated proposal would only have added a clarification to the BCO for those who felt the language of the book was not clear that intinction should not be practiced. Many who voted against the proposed BCO change did so because they felt there was no need for clarification; the book is already clear.

In fact, BCO 58-5, which concerns the distribution of the elements, gives language for the distribution of the two elements of communion. In a brief, one sentence paragraph between this language, the current and continuing language says this:

“Here the bread is to be distributed. AFTER having given the bread, he shall take the cup, and say:” (emphasis added)

In other words (an in my opinion and interpretation of the words), the correct order still involves the distribution of the elements separately, not together. Others, of course, may not agree with that.

This means that each Presbytery should include a question to all candidates and transfers (and, I would suggest, to all current members) asking if they are in accord with BCO 58-5 in that it requires separate distribution of the elements. Anyone who disagrees with that (i.e. believes in the practice of intinction) should make it clear that they hold a difference with the PCA standards and allow the Presbytery to decide on a case by case basis if that difference is merely a matter of semantics or if it should be considered an exception from the standards and then determine if it may or may not be taught and/or practiced.

I assume some Presbyteries will say it is merely semantics; some will say it is an allowable exception; and some will say it is an exception that may be held but not taught nor practiced. That would allow for further ways for the issue to come back to the General Assembly for a more final determination.

One way could be by way of an appeal if a man is charged with failure to follow the standards. Another way could be by way of a complaint if someone felt it was wrong to make the decision (one way or the other) by his Presbytery. And yet a third way could be the General Assembly Committee on Review of Presbytery Records bringing the issue to the floor of a General Assembly by way of substantive exception.

But for now, let it be clear, the PCA has NOT approved the practice of Intinction.

Don K. Clements is a Teaching Elder in the PCA, a member of Blue Ridge Presbytery, an Associate Evangelist with Presbyterian Evangelistic Fellowship and Director of Metokos Ministries. He is the co-founder and Executive News Editor of The Aquila Report.