This last summer, the 40th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America came down solidly against the practice of intinction; that is, partaking of the Lord’s Supper by dipping the bread into the cup rather than eating the bread and then drinking from the cup. In an essay entitled “Adiaphora and Intinction” found on byFaith, the Rev. Terry Johnson argues against intinction not on Biblical grounds, but because it is out of accord with our inherited presbyterian and reformed practice.
While many might find this line of argument of objectionable, preferring only Biblical arguments, I do not. I suspect Mr. Johnson agrees with the PCA’s 40th GA that intinction fails on Scriptural grounds because our Lord prayed over and distributed the two elements separately; I myself find that observation compelling. Appealing to our presbyterian tradition is a subordinate form of argumentation, but is entirely legitimate when one wishes to find support for a main point. As Mr. Johnson notes, in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, the Apostle Paul himself presents precisely this form of argument: a practice is unlawful according to Biblical revelation, and is also out of conformity with the custom of the Churches.
Mr. Johnson goes on to suggest intinction is motivated by an unwise desire to celebrate the Lord’s Supper weekly, counter to Puritan and Scottish Presbyterian practice of less frequent “communion seasons,” in which the sacrament is preceded with a week or so of special services in which the preaching exhorts listeners to prepare themselves to receive the elements. This is in fact his main point, as he concludes, "Attempts to alter established practices in order to rush the administration of the Lord’s Supper are, from the perspective of Reformed Protestantism, both theologically and pastorally dubious." This comes as no surprise from a pastor who has made his reputation as something of an Old School presbyterian and strong proponent of the regulative principle of worship.
While many might find this line of argument of objectionable, preferring only Biblical arguments, I do not. I suspect Mr. Johnson agrees with the PCA’s 40th GA that intinction fails on Scriptural grounds because our Lord prayed over and distributed the two elements separately; I myself find that observation compelling. Appealing to our presbyterian tradition is a subordinate form of argumentation, but is entirely legitimate when one wishes to find support for a main point. As Mr. Johnson notes, in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, the Apostle Paul himself presents precisely this form of argument: a practice is unlawful according to Biblical revelation, and is also out of conformity with the custom of the Churches.
Mr. Johnson goes on to suggest intinction is motivated by an unwise desire to celebrate the Lord’s Supper weekly, counter to Puritan and Scottish Presbyterian practice of less frequent “communion seasons,” in which the sacrament is preceded with a week or so of special services in which the preaching exhorts listeners to prepare themselves to receive the elements. This is in fact his main point, as he concludes, "Attempts to alter established practices in order to rush the administration of the Lord’s Supper are, from the perspective of Reformed Protestantism, both theologically and pastorally dubious." This comes as no surprise from a pastor who has made his reputation as something of an Old School presbyterian and strong proponent of the regulative principle of worship.
So far, so much to be expected, until one reads the biographical note after the essay’s conclusion: “Terry Johnson is senior pastor of Independent Presbyterian Church in Savannah, Ga.” Mr. Johnson serves a congregation which has made an oxymoron its very name. How is it, then, that he can admonish the readers of byFaith to adhere to traditional reformed practices when he has evidently failed to persuade his own congregation to abandon the manifestly anti-presbyterian custom of independency?
Very simply, because Mr. Johnson is a Big Man in the PCA. "Big Man Syndrome" is not peculiar to the PCA (although it sadly is a celebrated feature of the culture of those native to the American South), as any number of Big Men can be found in the assemblies of all reformed and presbyterian communions. The Big Man, by virtue of his position, is above criticism and so can freely, and without any apparent sense of irony, admonish others for failing to live by standards he himself would appear to be unacquainted with in personal practice. In Mr. Johnson's case, he is so convinced that weekly communion is unwise that he appeals to a traditon which more vigorously anathematizes his own pastoral position than it does intinction, and byFaith, not The Onion, runs the article.
With Mr. Johnson, I'd like to see presbyterians more self-consciously maintain our traditions (although I believe the regulative principle of worship favors weekly communion over less frequent celebrations). But first, we have to recognize and repent of the corruption introduced into the Church by deferring to the Big Man. Until we do, the traditions of men will continue to triumph over the traditions received from the apostles.
