Could Intinction Actually Be a Benefit?

Editors note: The Editors of V.73 came across this article, written by Justin Woodall, and thought it was worth sharing with a wider audience.

As I have watched the intinction debates unfold, both on the floor of General Assembly and in cyberspace since then, it has seemed that often times, both sides are talking past or around each other. So I created this chart that may be helpful in the discussion.

The area marked “1” is the physical stuff of communion. Things like do we use wine or juice. What counts as bread and what doesn’t. Gluten-free? Should we use a common cup or many cups. How should the table be set. The PCA has a huge diversity of practice in this area. Almost every church, for practicality or theology, does this differently.

The area marked “2” could be called sacramental action. How do we distribute and take the elements. Do we come forward or stay seated? Do we pass plates? Do we take the bread and wine separately or use intinction? This is where the debate currently lies in the PCA. The top line in the chart corresponds to a traditional means of taking communion. The bottom represents intinction.

The red lenses on the boundary between “2” and “3” represent the signs themselves as we receive them. In the case of the top line, a separate bread and cup. In the case of the lower line, bread dipped in wine.

The final area, “3” is the thing that the sacrament points to. In the case of the top line, it points directly to the last supper (and by extension the eschatological feast). When we take communion this way we can easily remember the way Jesus dined with His disciples on the night on which he was betrayed. This form of communion then only points to the cross by extension. On the other hand intinction symbolizes the cross, where we are reminded of Christ’ blood soaked body. We are secondarily pointed back to the last supper.

The debate, thus far is all about area “2” and our sacramental action. The difficulty is that a number of folks, myself included when I first realized there was even a question about this, accuse those who stand against intinction of an inconsistently atomistic reading of the text. They argue, it says “drink”; intinction isn’t drinking (an area 2 argument). Others respond, it says “wine”; why do you use juice? (an area 1 argument). This seems to be a well meaning red herring.

It seems to me that area 1 is going to have tons of varied opinions and arguing here is vain. What I am suggesting is that we talk about the things that our sacramental actions symbolize and signify. What are they pointing to. We need to discuss more about “body” and “blood” and that will inform the way we use eat/drink/bread/wine.

What do you think?

Related posts:

The PCA and Intinction: Perhaps a Different Conversation is in Order

Author Bio

  • Jerry Koerkenmeier

    This article is very problematic. The author claims, “intinction symbolizes the cross, where we are reminded of Christ’ blood soaked body.” The question is: What’s a stronger symbol of death: the body and blood separated, or the body with blood re-added to it?

    The the author concludes with a very confusing point. The author claims that when we take communion with the elements separately (the traditional method), as Christ and the Apostles did at the last supper, we primarily picture the supper itself and the eschatological feast. When we practice intinction (the novelty), we point to the cross. Okay – here’s where I need help: what did Christ picture when he instituted the supper with separate elements and actions?

    It seems that the author would be forced to conclude that Jesus Himself chose a method which didn’t do a good job of signifying the very thing he claimed was symbolized. Instead, we must believe He was symbolizing by his actions the meal itself, and no spiritual reality.

  • PCA RE

    If your intention is to continue to “speak past” those trying not to atomize the Westminster Standards then you’ve succeeded.  Perhaps we could begin in these analogies by tying together everything that is said about the RPW, Liberty of Conscience, and the nature of the Sacraments and all that bears upon them in the Confessional standards.  Once these are acknowledged, then one can evaluate the arguments being made.  Arguments seem plausible on the surface until they are systematically evaluated with the whole.

    A simple question that should be addressed:  Where in the Scriptures is the Lord’s Supper said to represent Christ’s blood soaked body on the Cross?

    You could evaluate your diagram further by addressing more fully how it comports with what the Standards say about the nature of Sacraments and their relationship to the thing signified, what the Lord’s Supper is said to signify (and how drinking and eating relate), and then see how your diagram holds up.

    This article is a prime example of the atomization of an issue:  present an argument as plausible but don’t do any other hermeneutical work (exegesis and systematics) to get the idea to harmonize with the system of doctrine as a whole.

    • http://twitter.com/futonreformer Justin Woodall

      Jerry and PCA RE, 
       Let me begin by saying what a privilege it is to serve a denomination that has ruling elders concerned and knowledgable enough to engage this debate. Thank you both.

      Jerry, I appreciate your continued engagement of this topic, both here and elsewhere. Unfortunately you have asked those same questions to men more articulate than me and found their answers wanting. 

      PCA RE, I think we are closer to one another than you think. This chart was born after reading the 100+ comments on Bobby’s original post here on V’73 as well as other places like Wes White’s blog. While I, admittedly, believe intinction should be within the realm of acceptable practice, I think that many of the arguments thus far have been wanting.

      Most of the pro-intinction arguments quickly jump over to a discussion of the number of cups. That’s not the best place to go. My hope is that folks who support intinction will do more thought and defense in the “2 &3″ realm and look at things like WLC 163 and phrases like “do this in remembrance of me” (Lk22:19). 

      It is certainly not my intent to atomize, but to encourage those who believe intinction to be acceptable to focus on the Sacrament, it’s action, and the things signified.

    • Jerry Koerkenmeier

      Justin – Thanks for your kind words! I think your proposal was interesting, but I had trouble understanding your last point, and I really haven’t heard anyone respond to it: what did Christ picture when he instituted the supper with separate elements and actions?

      This is an important question, because, as far as I can tell, yous is the only argument put forward that intinction might offer some theological benefit over the standard/traditional practice of separate consumption. It seems illogical to me, but I want to give you a chance to explain before I dismiss it.

    • Justin

      Jerry,

      I thouth that I might reply to your post in two parts. Mostly because I don’t have the time to dedicate to it right now. The first part is not necessarily for you, but I couldn’t think of a better place to put it. The second part, that I plan on getting to a little later this week, is where I am planning on answering your theological question directly.

      What I wanted to do today is give folks a breif history of my experience with intinction. I don’t believe that experience in any way validates theology, only the Word of God can do that; I do however believe that narratives can help us understand each other better.

      Reading post from across the internet, especially since GA, there seems to be a sense that intinction is a relatively new practice in the PCA and that it has, by-in-large been introduced by young pastors. In my case, this isn’t true.

      When I first came into the PCA as an intern, I worked for a church in SWFL Presbytery that has come out of the RPC,ES. This church was my first encounter with the PCA and with intinction. The church practiced intinction at the Maunday Thursday service. I went back and asked one of the senior saints how long the church had been practicing this. She said, that they had practiced “dipping” as long as she could remember during Holy Week.

      One of my mentors during my internship was a VA hospital chaplain. He too practiced intinction (and had for many years) at the hospital to help accomodate patients who had trouble swallowing.

      When I moved to the Palmetto Presbytery, the second year I served my church, they added a Thursday evening service before Good Friday. One of the (aged) elders suggested a family style meal followed by communion by intinction. The Session instituted the plan and we have practiced it, once a year, ever since.

      After I moved to South Carolina, my folks joined a core group and helped plant another church in Tampa. This church, which I attend while visiting my family only serves communion by intinction.

      By no means does this give any weight to intinction, I just mention it, to point out that there are some ordained folks in the PCA who have

    • Justin

      Ugh, that last post got cut off…How I meant to end it went something like this:

      By no means does this give any weight to intinction, I just mention it, to point out that there are some ordained folks in the PCA who have only ever attended churches that practice it.

      As I formulate theological defenses of something that has been a part of my PCA expereince from the begining, I am shocked, and quite frankly alarmed, that I am the only one who is offering a theological defense of the practice. It has been my hope that some other minds, sharper than mine, would be galvinized to discuss this practice from a positive stand point.

      I’ll give it my best shot later this week. Godspeed.

    • Michael Cummins

      Justin,

      I look forward to more explanation of your chart and thinking.  I have to admit, that while I mostly agree with you on your stance on intinction, I’ve had a bit of difficulty understanding what you’re trying to say with the chart.  

      Looking forward to your further responses.  

  • Rberman

    I also question the idea that with respect to the physical substances, “almost every church does this differently.” Justin identifies the variables:* Wine, juice, or both
    * Leavened or unleavened bread
    * Gluten-free bread or gluten bread
    * Common cup or separate cups

    This gives 3x2x2x2=24 different permutations. It would a great college thesis project to survey the 1771 churches of the PCA to see what the real spread is here. One method (probably juice, unleavened, gluten, separate) will have a plurality, and my guess is it’s a strong plurality. Some methods (both, unleavened, gluten, common cup) are probably much more rare.  My guesses would be:

    Wine 20%
    Juice 70%
    Both 10%

    Leavened 20%
    Unleavened 80%

    Gluten-free 10%
    Gluten 90%

    Common cup 5%
    Separate cups 95%

    I’d expect “common cup” and “wine” to strongly correlate.

    • Michael Cummins

      While I find this mostly unrelated to the point, a quick note: the author mentioned how the table was set, this brings to mind a host of new options… cloth or not?  Color of cloth?  Bread all in one plate or multiple?  Covered elements or exposed?  Anything other than the elements on the table?  What type of plates or serving dishes?  The list goes on.

      How about gluten and gluten free both?  Leavened and unleavened both?

      But really, I don’t see the point of this at all.  I don’t think Justin meant to be 100% literal in saying that each church does this in a distinctly different manner.  

  • Brandon Morgan

    The problem with your argument is this: My flesh is currently soaked in blood (I’m healthy).  If I were to suffer bloody trauma, my blood would be no longer soaked into the flesh; it would be poured out. This was certainly the old testament picture. Able’s blood cried out from the ground, dietary restrictions on blood, sacrificial images, etc… If we are to “show forth Christ’s death”  We should use the biblical image for death. Blood removed from the flesh. The life is in the blood 

    • Michael Cummins

      For your flesh to be “soaked in blood” would require internal bleeding.  Not necessarily death, but certainly not what I’d call healthy.  

      But that’s beside the point.  Intinction does use the image of separated blood and flesh.  We don’t go up to the table and fish out a floating swab of bread from a bowl of wine.  The elements are separate until about 1 second before entering your mouth.  They’re going to combine somewhere, right before your mouth (intinction), in your mouth, or in your stomach.  Should we take the two parts of the sacrament on different days to be sure they don’t intermingle?  

      Yep, a ridiculous argument and not one that I will really stand behind, but not really all that much different than these arguments against intinction.  

      I’d still like to hear the rest of Justin’s explanation of his thinking in this chart.  

  • http://twitter.com/futonreformer Justin Woodall

    Well, it’s been a crazy few weeks of ministry here in SC, so I haven’t had a chance to follow up with Jerry, Brandon, and PCARE’s comments. So here goes with some answers to the objections.

    First, to the chart. The chart has caused a bit more confusion than clarity. That’s probably my fault for not explaining well. After Bobby’s original article here on V73 crossed the 100 comment threshold, I started to see some patterns in the arguments. As I looked across other websites, I saw those same patterns repeating. The first was the (accidental) tendency to shift the discussion to things like common cups and alcohol content. I think that these are really interesting discussions and they are related to the question at hand. But they aren’t the question at hand. So I was hoping the chart would push some of the argument back to the merits of intinction itself. This is what is especially meant in setting aside “Area 1” issues. I think those are important, but they are only tangentially related to intinction.

    Second, still about the chart. Over in the comments on Bobby’s article, I made an allusion to baptism that muddied the waters. Again, that is on me. I need to clarify what I meant because it is important to what I am actually arguing for in regard to intinction. Let us set aside in our minds any consideration of immersion. Gone. In the PCA we recognize both sprinkling and affusion (pouring) as normative modes of baptism.(WCF 28.3) Each local church and in many cases, each minister choses from these two options as his conscience dictates. With regards to these two different means of sacramental action, we symbolize different aspects of baptism. Here is where my chart comes back into play. Sprinkling directly points to ceremonial washing away of sins. It indirectly points to the coming of Holy Spirit. On the other hand, pouring does a great job symbolizing the pouring out of Holy Spirit. It only secondarily points to the washing away of sins. I hope that the “Area 3” is clarified a bit by this analogy. The different sacramental actions (the red lenses in the chart) point to different aspects of baptism. Jesus was either sprinkled or had water poured on his head (there is, also, an outside shot he could have been immersed, if we are honest). Never-the-less we allow both, one of which was not the way the sacrament was instituted. Both valid administrations of baptism exhibit and signify different parts of the whole symbol.

    OK, how about some intinction discussion after all that?

    It is incredibly important to remember not just exactly the way it was done the first time, but the thing symbolized. So what does the Westminster Confession say is pointed to by the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper? In chapter 29 we find the following statements: 

    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 (29.1)

    but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all (29.2)

    The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained be 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 (29.5)

    but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death (29.7)

    Again and again the confession points to the death of Christ as the thing that the sacrament is meant to remind us about. We see this in 1st Corinthians as well when we read, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (11:26) We also know that the Lord’s Supper is meant to remind us of the Passover meal, the last night Jesus was with His disciples, and the great Marriage Feast of the Lamb.

    With this symbolism in mind, what I am arguing is that as a sensible sign (WLC163) intinction visibly points to Christ on the cross. On the cross, Jesus body was covered in blood as it was broken. It was a terrible and gruesome way for the Redeemer to take our sins on himself. As an occasional practitioner of intinction, when I see the separately prayed over and instituted elements come together in this way, it is a vivid sign and exhibit of the sacrifice of Christ for me.

    On the other hand as a regular practitioner of communion in small cups, I am vividly reminded of the Last Supper and the coming Marriage Feast of the Lamb. The bread and wine do also in this method point to the body and blood of Jesus.

    I am not arguing that Jesus served communion by intinction that last supper. But we don’t demand that baptism be preformed exactly the way it was instituted. Since we allow for two different modes of administration of Baptism, both of which point to different aspects of the sign and symbol, why can we not do the same with communion. We allow churches to practice sacraments in a way that differs from the exact way of the institution (again, water was either sprinkled or poured on Jesus head, not both) on one sacrament, why not the other.  

    At this point, I do want to concede that Jerry’s argument about the OT sacrificial systems removal of the blood from the sacrifices is a strong one. However, I don’t believe this is a completely convincing case. In one of the strongest and most direct OT pictures of the crucifixion, Isaiah 53, we are told, “By His wounds we are healed”. Wounds or stripes, have a blood on body connotation.

    Above all, I want to point out, that though I am defending this position theologically, I am not married to it. If my fathers and brothers in the presbyteries decide to move forward with the ban I will submit.

    • Jerry Koerkenmeier

      Justin,

      Thanks for this helpful response. To me, one critical question remains:

      What did Christ picture when he instituted the supper with separate elements and actions?

      I think when you look at the words Christ used at the Supper, and then answer this question, you’ll see the problem with what you are proposing.

      Jerry

    • Michael Cummins

      Justin, Thank you for the clarifications.  This helps me to understand your chart and thinking a lot better.  

      Jerry, I think Christ pictured his body and blood, broken and shed for all for the remission of sins.  He pictured His sacrifice for our redemption.  This is what He said.  He didn’t say “Do this, in this exact prescriptive manner, or you won’t be doing this in remembrance of me,” but simply to do the sacrament in remembrance of His sacrifice.  It requires some assumptions to say that his words/actions were meant to be precisely prescriptive.  Even if we grant that they were prescriptive, I believe there’s still a legitimate argument that intinction fits well within the bounds of that prescription.  

      What I don’t think He pictured was a bunch of men quibbling over a minor difference in the practice.  

      I respect the desire and effort to keep the practices of the church pure, but I find this move against intinction in that regard a bit misguided – it seems more like legalism and conformism than a real issue of impurity.