Visiting a church that practices intinction

[SRoper]

To those who are opposed to intinction, what would you do if you visit a church that practices intinction and why?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

When I have been to a service where Intinction was practiced I have abstained.

 

[Zach]

Before I understood the Confessionally Reformed position I took part in Intinction, however, now I would abstain.

 

[Jack K]

I suppose I count as one "opposed." I believe intincition is an error but not so grave an error as to, in itself, render the Supper void or an affront to the gospel.

Given that, I would participate if nothing else stood in the way. In fact, I have done so once (in a typically liberal-ish mainline church) and was more concerned with larger questions of whether or not I considered that church a true church, whether or not the gospel was being proclaimed in the administration of the Supper, etc. than I was with their practice of intinction. Those issues would have stopped me before intinction would have.

It's good to avoid error, but not all errors are worth breaking or refraining from fellowship over.

 

[Kevin]

I do not oppose intinction, in fact we practice it. But I would hope that this discussion is moot.

I would be very surprised if a PCA church did not accommodate the scruples of a brother that felt restrained by partaking via intinction. When I give the instructions re partaking I almost always mention that you may intinct or drink from the cup as your conscience dictates.

We also try to accommodate those that avoid wine by offering two cups. Almost no one uses the juice except a few kids and one pregnant lady.

I began this practice after GA when I learned how passionate some of the anti-intinction brothers were about the issue.

 

[AThornquist]

Too weeks ago I visited a PCA church in Florida that practices intinction. However, they also had a couple ladies off on the side holding grape juice and crackers for those who didn't wanted the alcohol--or in my case, those who didn't want to practice intinction. Of course, among some that raises another question about using grape juice instead of wine, but whatever.

 

[Scott1]

Knowing what I now know,
would peaceably abstain and look for opportunity to give reason to someone at that church.

Observing the Lord's Supper carefully is of highest importance. As is unity over it.

If it were a PCA church, knowing its constitution, and being an officer myself, I would respectfully and peaceably communicate to church authority there (because it is unconstitutional, and therefore a violation of elder vows).

Were it my own PCA church, would communicate through the steps up to the point of lodging petition with Session.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I do not oppose intinction, in fact we practice it

As someone who is fairly ignorant on this subject, I am curious as to what the motivation or purpose is to practicing intinction. I can understand the arguments against it, but there must be some logic behind it or else no one would do it.

 

[Scott1]

Scott,
Your post also asked why.

For the PCA, it's a matter of the clear reading of the constitution regarding a separate contemplation of the elements, reflection on the part of each by the PCA BCO which is constitutional authority. Intentionally, the confession of the denomination is bound this way by oath.

Just like with officers who violate their oath by installing women deaconess and substituting them for the office and vocation doctrine of the BCO, they are responsible to God and the officers He has appointed for their oath.

We live in a generation where oaths are taken lightly.

In addition, for all churches it is that the Scriptures require what the PCA BCO implicitly assumes is the doctrine- especially careful handling of a holy sacrament, instituted by our Lord, with admonition not to partake or handle carelessly or lightly. Scripture also speaks to disunity over its practice. The body and the blood are separate things our Lord spoke to as He instructed the sacrament. We don't really need anyone's modern day opinions on this because Scripture speaks enough to it so it is plain, by good and necessary consequence, to require careful adherence to a separate contemplation of those two elements.

Inventions have no place in the sacraments. If the regulative principle has any application, it is here, and God is particular about protecting the decency and sanctity of His Supper. While this may be taken lightly in our generation, we have every reason to believe our Lord does not take it so.

We need to respect it and have a holy fear of not doing so.

In this generation, as in any other.

 

[Romans922]

To those who are opposed to intinction, what would you do if you visit a church that practices intinction and why?

I would abstain, and as an elder of the Church (PCA - your denomination), I would seek to address the problem (if I were not an elder, I would talk with my own elders about it to see how they are addressing it), whether that is to address the Session, Presbytery or what have you. If I knew the church I was going to attend practiced intinction, I would avoid them and go elsewhere. If they cannot submit to Christ on this one main issue of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper and worship, I would not want to expose my family to such things. Our Lord is seeking true worshippers who worship in spirit and truth, not compromising ones.

Intinction is contrary to the Scriptures where our Lord Jesus Christ instituted the Lord's Supper and thus it brings disunity to the Church. Jesus was very clear,

"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. 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, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 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. 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, 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.' 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.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 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. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died."

 

[Rom]

I do not oppose intinction, in fact we practice it. But I would hope that this discussion is moot.

I would be very surprised if a PCA church did not accommodate the scruples of a brother that felt restrained by partaking via intinction. When I give the instructions re partaking I almost always mention that you may intinct or drink from the cup as your conscience dictates.

We also try to accommodate those that avoid wine by offering two cups. Almost no one uses the juice except a few kids and one pregnant lady.

I began this practice after GA when I learned how passionate some of the anti-intinction brothers were about the issue.

Some of the other elders here on the PB say that intinction is unconstitutional - how does a church stay in the PCA and practice it?

 

[Romans922]

The language of the Book of Church Order of the PCA states,

"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."

This is the relevant section to the BCO for the PCA. The underlined (is my underline, everything bolded is original) is what I would say is the disagreed upon part. Those opposing intinction would say it is sufficiently showing that the cup is distinguished from the bread and should be partaken of separately. Those approving of intinction would say that it is only talking about distributing not the partaking of it (I think I am being fair in that assessment, as it appears to be the only possible way to go about approving the practice from here or to see that those who practice it are still submitting to the BCO on this point).



The WLC 174 is helpful as well as it says,

"Q. 174. What is required of them that receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper in the time of the administration of it?
A. It is required of them that receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, that, during the time of the administration of it, with all holy reverence and attention they wait upon God in that ordinance, diligently observe the sacramental elements and actions, heedfully discern the Lord’s body, and affectionately meditate on his death and sufferings, and thereby stir up themselves to a vigorous exercise of their graces; in judging themselves, and sorrowing for sin; in earnest hungering and thirsting after Christ, feeding on him by faith, receiving of his fullness, trusting in his merits, rejoicing in his love, giving thanks for his grace; in renewing of their covenant with God, and love to all the saints."

I have underlined the relevant part here. I don't know how advocates of intinction interpret this. I guess they may say that the actions of what Jesus and Paul showed does not include the partaking of the bread distinct from the partaking of the cup. Obviously the sacramental elements are the bread and cup, the actions (from a Westminster Divine perspective) are the partaking of the bread and then after that the partaking of the cup to show forth the sacrificial imagery of Christ's death in the separation of the body and blood.

 

[OPC'n]

Never heard of it till now . I think we should follow the example Christ gave to us and not try to come up with something we think is a better way.

 

[littlepeople]

Kevin, I can tell you that not all churches will accommodate as you are willing to. After several meetings with the church planter where we were attending, my only choice was to abstain. I'm glad to hear of your reasonableness about it.

 

[SRoper]

I suppose I count as one "opposed." I believe intincition is an error but not so grave an error as to, in itself, render the Supper void or an affront to the gospel.

Given that, I would participate if nothing else stood in the way. In fact, I have done so once (in a typically liberal-ish mainline church) and was more concerned with larger questions of whether or not I considered that church a true church, whether or not the gospel was being proclaimed in the administration of the Supper, etc. than I was with their practice of intinction. Those issues would have stopped me before intinction would have.

It's good to avoid error, but not all errors are worth breaking or refraining from fellowship over.

Thanks for the replies so far! For those who would or do abstain, how would you reply to Jack's position (which, incidentally, is similar mine at present)? I hold that intinction is an error, but not one that invalidates the sacrament. It seems if this is the case, those in attendance can partake in good conscience while still working for the peace and purity of the church.

I do not oppose intinction, in fact we practice it. But I would hope that this discussion is moot.

I would be very surprised if a PCA church did not accommodate the scruples of a brother that felt restrained by partaking via intinction. When I give the instructions re partaking I almost always mention that you may intinct or drink from the cup as your conscience dictates.

We also try to accommodate those that avoid wine by offering two cups. Almost no one uses the juice except a few kids and one pregnant lady.

I began this practice after GA when I learned how passionate some of the anti-intinction brothers were about the issue.

I think that would be a good way to handle it if you insist on intinction. At the church I have in mind, I asked the pastor about this option, and he said it is perfectly acceptable. However, the fact that it is never publicly offered as an option and the fact that exactly zero congregants partake of it this way makes it a bit awkward.

 

[Scott1]

I suppose I count as one "opposed." I believe intincition is an error but not so grave an error as to, in itself, render the Supper void or an affront to the gospel.

Given that, I would participate if nothing else stood in the way. In fact, I have done so once (in a typically liberal-ish mainline church) and was more concerned with larger questions of whether or not I considered that church a true church, whether or not the gospel was being proclaimed in the administration of the Supper, etc. than I was with their practice of intinction. Those issues would have stopped me before intinction would have.

It's good to avoid error, but not all errors are worth breaking or refraining from fellowship over.

Thanks for the replies so far! For those who would or do abstain, how would you reply to Jack's position (which, incidentally, is similar mine at present)? I hold that intinction is an error, but not one that invalidates the sacrament. It seems if this is the case, those in attendance can partake in good conscience while still working for the peace and purity of the church.

I do not oppose intinction, in fact we practice it. But I would hope that this discussion is moot.

I would be very surprised if a PCA church did not accommodate the scruples of a brother that felt restrained by partaking via intinction. When I give the instructions re partaking I almost always mention that you may intinct or drink from the cup as your conscience dictates.

We also try to accommodate those that avoid wine by offering two cups. Almost no one uses the juice except a few kids and one pregnant lady.

I began this practice after GA when I learned how passionate some of the anti-intinction brothers were about the issue.

I think that would be a good way to handle it if you insist on intinction. At the church I have in mind, I asked the pastor about this option, and he said it is perfectly acceptable. However, the fact that it is never publicly offered as an option and the fact that exactly zero congregants partake of it this way makes it a bit awkward.

I don't intend to speak for Jack or Kevin,
but the issue is not really whether the invention invalidates the sacrament.

Nor is it one of accommodating an individuals "scruples." It is corporate worship after all. That means people doing something in common together, at the same time. In the case of the PCA, there is a confession, and a constitution upheld by oath. If we know these things, we do not want to further disunity, false witness, violation of oath, etc. It's a serious matter for the Christian.

The Lord's Supper is neglected, ignored, mishandled in many communions. For example, the Salvation Army virtually does not practice it all. Calvary Chapel seldom practices it. Others teach it is merely a memorial, and only of incidental importance.
Yet our Lord very specifically laid out the pattern for its administration- and commanded His people to do likewise.

Nor is it a matter of the communion not being charitably called Christian or even regarding its members or that minister mishandling the Lord's Supper as an unbeliever.

But, indeed, it is a matter of "breaking fellowship" in the sense of not joining the church or further participating in major error and/or violation of its oath and confession.

The reason is the warnings concerning the Lord's Supper and the seriousness with which Scripture treats it demands we do the same.

There are preferential areas of Christian practice, but the Lord's Supper is not one of them.

At minimum, inventing in one's imagination, or changing it for convenience is disobedience. It's more serious for the minister, bishop or elder mishandling it in that way, and aggravation of sin because to whom much is given (minister), much is required.

Since the Lord's Supper is a requirement of a Christian church, it's not a matter of preference, but a matter of principle. So, knowing what the Bible teaches by good and necessary consequence, and knowing what a church confession or constitution requires, it's best that one not further that disobedience, including by example.

Knowing what I now know, it would require peaceable abstinence followed by communication to the church in some way. If someone were to know of the serious error and still partake, knowing the Lord's Supper was being mishandled, or its officers violating their oath, it would seem to me they must communicate that to the church authority, else they would share in the guilt. To do nothing would be countenance open sin, and in the Lord's House.

And while the Session would ultimately share some blame if it were mishandled, there is immediate cause for discipline of the teaching elder who mishandles it.

 

[Edward]

would peaceably abstain

I'd abstain, as I do when I visit a LCMS, or Roman church. Step out in the aisle to let others on the row out, walk to the other end of the row, and then resume my place as folks return to their seats. That probably falls within the 'peaceable' range, but my standards for confrontational might be different from some others here.

 

[lynnie]

I would take it and thank God that you don't have to drink from a cup that a whole lot of germy other mouths just drank from. Don't jump on me about trusting God not to get sick with one cup; people are coughing and sneezing and running fevers around here, and you can be contagious before the symptoms start. I don't think pastors are trying to rebel aginst scripture or confessions, they are trying to be sanitary. I don't have the faith to share one cup right now.

Yes you can use those little individual plastic cups, but then you lose the idea of the one cup.

I think the anti-intinction crowd is right, I really do, they are trying to be biblical. I don't know what the answer is with germs to consider, but I think you should show some mercy and just do it.

 

[J. Dean]

Never had the chance to abstain from or participate in it.

I would be curious, however, to know whether or not the views of those who disagree with it see the Lord's supper as symbolic a la Zwingli.

 

[Covenant Joel]

Never had the chance to abstain from or participate in it.

I would be curious, however, to know whether or not the views of those who disagree with it see the Lord's supper as symbolic a la Zwingli.

I doubt you will find any of Zwingli's view here, at least among those opposed to intinction.

 

[Mushroom]

Never had the chance to abstain from or participate in it.

I would be curious, however, to know whether or not the views of those who disagree with it see the Lord's supper as symbolic a la Zwingli.

Rather than bait, how about you put forth your evident opinion that anti-intinction derives from a Zwinglian view of the Supper?

 

[SRoper]

I would take it and thank God that you don't have to drink from a cup that a whole lot of germy other mouths just drank from. Don't jump on me about trusting God not to get sick with one cup; people are coughing and sneezing and running fevers around here, and you can be contagious before the symptoms start. I don't think pastors are trying to rebel aginst scripture or confessions, they are trying to be sanitary. I don't have the faith to share one cup right now.

Yes you can use those little individual plastic cups, but then you lose the idea of the one cup.

I think the anti-intinction crowd is right, I really do, they are trying to be biblical. I don't know what the answer is with germs to consider, but I think you should show some mercy and just do it.

You're far more likely to get sick from the bread. Do you eat the bread after others have handled it?

Never had the chance to abstain from or participate in it.

I would be curious, however, to know whether or not the views of those who disagree with it see the Lord's supper as symbolic a la Zwingli.

Would you care to elaborate? I'm not sure what the connection would be. I understand the sacrament to be a means of grace conferred by the Spirit and received by faith. I certainly don't have a Memorialist view. (Whether Zwingli is properly considered a Memorialist is a discussion for another time!)

 

[Kevin]

For those of us in the PCA the proper place to debate this issue is at our presbyteries. I took full advantage of that opportunity at our recent meeting. So I will not be debating it here.

However I will attempt to explain some of the issues raised here.

Intinction is considered by many to be an acceptable method of receiving the two elements. It seems to have had advocates in the PCA and the RPC-ES for a few years now. As the PCA has planted churches outside of the old PCUS geography planters often find themselves far from any other elders. The (existing) practice of intinction seemed to solve the issue of how to celebrate the Lord's Supper with only one elder.

This expansion of the PCA also happened when a renewed interest in sacramental theology was leading men to consider issues of frequency, common cup, wine, etc.

So several (many?) people adopted it.

The practice became more widespread and was the method of celebrating the Supper at a recent GA. Some men began to oppose it and introduced a resolution to that effect. It passed at the most recent GA by a slim majority and is now working it's way through the presbyteries. As our standards require.

I was frankly stunned to hear the level of opposition at the recent GA. As a result of the passion of those opposed I made a couple of changes to our local practice.

1) I use the invitation to invite people to participate by intinction (I call it dipping) or by drinking form the cup as their consciences dictate. No one has drunk so far.

2) In deference to the unsettled nature of the issue (constitutionally in the PCA) I have not intincted myself since GA. I always drink form the cup.

I am trying very hard to maintain a practice that I believe is Biblical and constitutional while still submitting to my brothers. If the presbyteries uphold the 2012 GA vote then I will follow it. However, I wonder if all of those that have posted so confidently and self-assuredly against the practice are prepared to be magnanimous if the vote in the presbyteries goes against their view?

 

[lynnie]

You're far more likely to get sick from the bread. Do you eat the bread after others have handled it?

Bread? You use real bread, like made with yeast? No no no, it was the passover, they had unleavened bread. It isn't biblical to imitate the last supper with yeast bread.

We don't use bread, they break up matzah ahead of time on a plate. So no "one loaf". If they did have some sort of tortilla fried bread, or some dense heavy thing with no leavening, then you would be correct about the germs. I guess we should be breaking up the matzah as we partake and not do it ahead of time.

But I am gluten intolerant and pretty badly so; even one bite of wheat will cause me constant pain for a day. So I don't even eat the bread at all. I guess I should ask them to use some rice wafers for people like me. Potato chips maybe?

I sure hope I am truly feeding on the Lord by His spirit day by day seeing as my communion experience is so deficient from the TR point of view

Before I get an infraction, let me go on record as saying that the position of one cup and one (unleavened) loaf being shared separately certainly seems like the most faithful to scripture......but modern day pastors being considerate of germs should be treated with respect for their kindness, even if you do disagree with them about it.

 

[Romans922]

Intinction is considered by ,any to be an acceptable method of receiving the two elements. It seems to have had advocates in the PCA and the RPC-ES for a few years now. As the PCA has planted churches outside of the old PCUS geography planters often find themselves far from any other elders. The (existing) practice of intinction seemed to solve the issue of how to celebrate the Lord's Supper with only one elder.

Popularity is not an argument for something when it pertains to the worship of the Lord (see golden calf). Also, as it has to do with the PCA, 4.6% is not many or several.

I am trying very hard to maintain a practice that I believe is Biblical and constitutional while still submitting to my brothers.

You believe the practice of intinction is biblical, based on what from Scripture? I've yet to hear a Biblical defense for the practice.

However, I wonder if all of those that have posted so confidently and self-assuredly against the practice are prepared to be magnanimous if the vote in the presbyteries goes against there view?

If the vote is to not approve the BCO amendment (which is most likely the case), nothing changes. The Scriptures and the Constitution are still clear on this issue, that intinction is not a proper or valid way to practice the Lord's Supper. Voting against the amendment is not a vote for intinction. It is only a vote against the amendment. I know many who who are not voting for the amendment (for whatever reason) and yet believe intinction is very much contrary to Scripture and skews the picture of Christ's death on the cross.

 

[Romans922]

No no no, it was the passover, they had unleavened bread.

When Christ instituted the Lord's Supper, He actually used a very generic word for bread even when the words of 'unleavened' were at His disposal.


As for one bread, Scripture does give that picture when in 1 Cor. 10 it shows that the 'one bread' points to the reality of the unity of the Church (one Church).

However, 'one cup' is not exactly found in Scripture. Even at the Last Supper the picture is more towards individual cups, for Christ called the disciples to divide up the cup amongst themselves before they drank.

 

[Kevin]

As I stated above Andrew, the place for us to debate this is at our presbytery meetings. And I agree BTW, popularity is no argument.

I do disagree with you however vis your assertion that if the amendment fails nothing changes.

Certainly those that argued for the minority substitution did not think this way. Clearly those who took the floor in favour of the minority believed that they were working to ban intinction. I was convinced by their passion and argument. So it seems probable that should the amendment fail that intinction is allowed. N'est pas?

 

[Romans922]

I agree that a good place to discuss these things are at the Presbytery level, but that doesn't mean we also can't discuss them here. Hence, one of these reasons for these types of forums. You are free to do as you like, but it is somewhat rude to come here and 'argue' or start a debate with things you say to stir the pot and then keep saying that you don't want to debate and the place for it is at Presbytery level. Seems contradicting in my view.

So again, I say I have never heard a Biblical defense for the practice and here you are saying that intinction is a biblical practice.

I would add that on the overtures committee there were some who voted against changing the BCO because they thought it was already clear in not allowing intinction. It would stand to reason that others on the floor of GA had the same view (more than just the OC), that it doesn't need to be changed. This is one of the reasons there was not a rationale that came to the floor of GA from the Over. Committee. Those voting against it on the OC had two (actually 3) different reasons why they opposed it.

To be quite frank, the amendment that came to the OC had intinction as the reason, but the minority's view was to strengthen the Lang. Of the BCO to be more in line with Scripture instead of just bar one particular practice (intinction). So that language/word 'intinction' is not in the amend. It is only one of many possibilities barred under the amendment.

 

[Kevin]

So by "strengthening the lang." you intended to ban intinction and...mini cups?...grape juice?

I must disagree. Those that spoke to the substitution were to a man opposed to intinction. The only reference to other sacramental innovations were from those brothers that practiced intinction. Or defended their right to do so.

Also I consider it "churlish" of you to call me rude for offering an explanation of how a practitioner of intinction deals with the process of our courts.

I only intended to explain my own practice, not to debate the issue.

 

[Jack K]

For the PCA, it's a matter of the clear reading of the constitution regarding a separate contemplation of the elements, reflection on the part of each by the PCA BCO which is constitutional authority. Intentionally, the confession of the denomination is bound this way by oath.

Scott1... I mentioned earlier that my vote (if I had one) would be against intinction. And I agree that the PCA BCO at least strongly suggests that intinction is not the right way to administer the Supper. But that said, allow me to challenge you on two matters...

1. Since you typically are a supporter of the need to submit to the church's constitutional documents, as enforced by the church's courts, why do you say so strongly that administering the Supper by intinction is a clear violation of an officer's vows? Hasn't that very question come up recently in the PCA's highest court? And isn't the church still in the process of deciding whether or not intinction is a violation of those vows? It seems that a spirit of submission to the church courts would dictate that we reserve judgment on the matter of oath-breaking (a serious charge) until the issue is decided. Don't you agree that the question of what the constitutional documents allow is for the church courts to decide, not for individuals to declare as they see fit? Do you see that it's hard to make the charge of vow-breaking stick when the church courts have considered the issue and not yet acted to stop intinction (no matter what we may guess the majority of voters at GA were thinking)?

2. Only a fraction of churches in this world are PCA. In many cases of visiting another church where intinction is practiced, the pastor has taken no oath to uphold any document that even suggests intinction is wrong. In such a case, would you say it's okay to partake? Or would you still refrain and, if so, does that mean you think it is a matter that goes beyond officer vows after all?