For many people, the jury is still out on whether the internet (and particularly the blogosphere) is helping or hindering the life of the PCA. While Vintage 73 might be pointed to as an example of a site which sometimes causes division–ahem, “let’s spilt the PCA“–our attempt with this site has been to communicate opinions with a spirit of charity. But let’s be honest, Vintage 73 is a small fry. We don’t write that much, and don’t get nearly the traffic that some of the other PCA blogs do. Without knowing the specifics, I’d wager that the Aquila Report, a split from Byfaith (led by Dominic Aquila, Don Clements, and Douglas Vos¹) is definitely at the top of the heap of influential blog sites in the PCA.

Now, no one will be shocked to learn that I don’t always agree with all the material put up on the Aquila Report. But, in many ways I’ve felt that the Aquila Report was moving in the right direction. They removed the commenting section from their site, and have moved to aggregating more of their content than writing it.

Despite the many positive steps made by the staff of the Aquila Report, I am continually bothered by two important journalistic issues.

First, they say they are a news site, but seem to ignore widely accepted standards of journalism. Second, while the Aquila Report states that it is a source of “news and opinion”, they seem to have a very difficult time distinguishing the two.

One of the core principles of journalism is that you can’t be the story and write the story.² Put another way, journalists must avoid even the perception of any conflict of interest when writing a news story. We find conflicts of interests by asking questions like: does the journalist have a relationship with the person they are writing about? Does the journalist have a stake in the outcome of a topic they are covering? Could the journalist be seen to be favoring a certain side because of personal interests?

In the last two months I have seen several stories which have forced me to ask one or more of these questions about the Aquila Report. One such article was written by TE Clements. TE Clements does acknowledge that he was a voting member of the committee he was reporting on, but why couldn’t someone else make the report? A second question about the same article is–why the odd choice of saying over and over again “Rocky Mountain TE” instead of “TE Dominic Aquila”?³ I can’t help but think that part of the reason has to do with the fact that the TE Aquila is the Editor in Chief of the Aquila report, and the site bears his name. According to the Society of Professional Journalists, Reporters are called to “avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.”⁴ Wouldn’t it be a no-brainer that Christian news organizations would exceed standards of ethics established by non-Christian journalist?

I am also confused by the overlap between news and opinions on the Aquila Report. Time and time again, the line between news and opinion is blurred. There are no apparent reasons why some articles are filed under “News” and why others are labeled “Opinion”. Andy Webb’s open letter ⁵ to the National Partnership is filed under News, while Bob Mattes’s post on the same topic is in the Opinion section. TE Clements wrote an article under the News section where he admits that he is writing his opinion about a topic in which he is personally invested. The end result is that members of local congregations in the PCA go to the Aquila Report to find news, and are instead handed the opinions of a small group of contributors, under the label of news.

Of course in the church, when we take time to write about something, we are going to be invested, but shouldn’t we then strive to make sure that any reader can clearly distinguish between an opinion piece and a news article? The Aquila Report has done a good job of reporting on daily news about the PCA, but this good work is partially undone when polemic is filed under news.

Now the guys over at the Aquila Report aren’t monsters and I’m not willing to insinuate that there is anything nefarious going on. I hope that they take my concerns to heart, but I understand that they might not. It seems like they have two ways to move forward. Either their reporters need to follow established journalistic strands which avoid and disclose any potential conflicts of interest. Or they need to be up front about the personal and polemic nature of the their site.

Photo Credit: Madison Guy via Compfight cc

I was asked to give an address that provided a history of the theological justification for racism, slavery and segregation in the US Church with a focus on the South. You can watch the address and other conversations here, but I closed with four actions that I perceive to be needs addressed by denominations, local churches and Christians. I will paste those below at the request of Dr. Ligon Duncan.

Let me offer a few words about practical repentance and how I believe we can move forward. These are not intended to be comprehensive by any means.

First, we need public confessions of repentance at denominational and institutional levels on the part of those whose history played a role in propagating racism. I realize that is not a popular stance in my own denomination, but in the book of Nehemiah, the Jewish people repented of the sins of their forefathers. This has to happen. I believe in denominations and I believe denominations, like my own, need to move beyond generic statements and move toward the pain. Because pain is honest and repentance will bring the seeds of reconciliation.

Second, we need honest stories. When Propaganda’s rap “Precious Puritans” was released last year, the white Reformed world in the US went ballistic that he talked about the reality of Puritans and race. Yet, academics have talked about it for years. Academics have talked about the racist views of white Southern church leaders. Academics have told us about sexual, cultural and physical brutality. Academics have told us these stories that seminarians and pastors and parishoners do not know about their own theological forbearers. If the writer of the book of Judges wrote that story the way most white Christians understand the history of Christianity in the US, it would be propaganda, plain and simple. We need honest stories even when they are uncomfortable.

Third, we need honest conversations and cross-cultural, cross-racial friendship and dialogue. We will never move past the sins of the past until we are willing to talk about it. I need to hear stories of my friends who get pulled over for “driving while black.” I need to hear stories about my friends whose parents and grandparents faced discrimination. I need to be told how my own privilege prevents me from understanding the world the way it does my African-American friends. I need to know. We need to talk about hard things, about social structures and the fact that there aren’t enough black Presbyterians and the fact that Evangelicalism will host Gospel Growth or Church Growth conferences but never explore the cultural and social issues of race and privilege.

The last thing I will offer is this: we need a resurgence of prophetic Christianity. One of the things I have realized over the past few years is that politics and markets have reinforced the racial divide among Christians in the United States. Prophetic religion always challenges the status quo. It always speaks boldly. It always makes everyone uncomfortable. Prophetic religion is not left or right or black or white, but it is hungry to show that change is needed and that change is possible. I believe that prophetic Christianity will breathe life into the American Church and awake her from the complacency and captivity to the Republican and Democratic parties; awaken her from the power of the marketers and corporations and will persuade others to heed the radical words of Christ who calls each of us to take up our cross and follow him.

Are you willing to Participate?

How many of us are willing to move from celebrating to defending the shape of the PCA?

Are you willing to recognize that the PCA can’t be static?

Are you willing to learn to be churchmen?

I’m asking questions about the future of the PCA, you can be sure that many others are asking them as well.

Could a split the best thing for the PCA? I know this is a question that won’t get me elected moderator, but maybe it’s one that more leaders in the PCA should be considering.

While immediately many people will begin rummaging for reasons why the answer to my question is, “no”, let me do three things. First let me suggest what kind of partitioning I have in mind. Second, let us look at some of the problems that we have in our current form. Finally we can consider some of the benefits of an intentional split. What kind of partitioning are we talking about? Well let’s consider that there are several large tribes in the PCA, some smaller or larger than others. It it easy to compose several equally fitting ways to partition the denomination (culture, location, philosophy of ministry), but instead of doing that, lets simply talk about three or four similarly sized partitions.

An intentional partitioning would recognize and allow the competing identities we see in the PCA to grow along each side each other, rather than bite against each other.

Division rightfully leaves a bad taste in our mouths, and too often it has been done with great sadness. But what I am proposing is not a, “purge the evil from your midst” attitude. It’s not even an, “I’m going to take my ball and go home” attitude. What I’m suggesting is a peaceful and equitable separation, that emphasizes cooperation and support afterward, rather than shouts of, “good riddance.” What I’m suggesting is a family of brothers moving into their own homes, while staying in the same town. We are not talking about a divorce.

Rationale

First it seems obvious that our current structure and theological positions are not likely to move very much. A line here, a sentence there, but that’s about it. Many people are happy where the lines have landed, but many others seem to be frustrated by this stalemate. Some are even frustrated enough to say things like: “conservatives clearly cannot affect [change] in any meaningful way.”¹

the reality seems to be that no one group in the PCA is able to shake the tree hard enough to knock the others out.

Others are frustrated enough to simply slip away from the denomination. Each year the match goes back and forth. Each side is both optimistic and stifled. The same men who cheer the defeat of one overture, hang their heads low at the adoption of the next. This pattern repeats itself time and time again, and the reality seems to be that no one group in the PCA is able to shake the tree hard enough to knock the others out.

Paradoxically this stalemate seems to cause more tension and fear around assemblies. Will this be the year that things come crashing down? Will this be the year that I am pushed outside the bounds of the PCA? Will this be the year that the other side win? This kind of thing shouldn’t be celebrated, but must it be ignored? An intentional split along theological or philosophical lines would free us from the strife and finger-pointing we currently see in the domination.

The second reason to consider an intentional partitioning of the denomination has to do with the identity of the PCA. In truth, the PCA has no national identity. Depending on where you are in the country and with whom you’re talking, the PCA will be honored or shamed to some degree or another. The PCA has a muddled reputation, and this problems extends into the Kingdom as well. Some Christians I’ve talked to think the PCA is a cantankerous group of grumps. Others think we are a bunch of watered-down wimps.

Two competing solutions have been offered to this problem: Either we move toward a stronger central leadership, or towards a stronger shared culture. In truth, I’d imagine that if we were able to decide on one, either would work just fine. The problem is that to decided on either would betray some part of what has made us the PCA. To embrace a stronger central office, would be to reject our emphasis on being a bottom up movement.

To insist on a uniform culture in our churches, in terms of worship and philosophy of ministry, would be to reject our emphasis on being a national Presbyterian church. A forced uniformity would be a rejection of the full history of our denomination (After all the PCA is made up of the old PCUS, the old United Presbyterians, the Bible Presbyterians, the Covenanters, and even those curious Independent Presbyterians, to name a few). An intentional partitioning would recognize and allow the competing identities we see in the PCA to grow along each side each other, rather than fighting with each other.

The third reason that we might consider a peaceful division, is because it seems that we are/or have outgrown our structural connections. In our current undelegated structures, maybe we are just too large of an organization to work effectively. We’ve decided year after year not to shorten our assemblies, we’ve decide that we all want a vote. I’ve yet to met anyone who really loved the idea of an Overtures Committee. At best it is a compromise, a tourniquet that has keep us alive the last few years. It’s not hard to imagine that at some point even the Overtures committee will bloat beyond its usefulness, and become too big to work as it was intended.

Now many will say, “no we just fixed this…we just amended x to correct a new problem that we noticed.” But there we have the meta-problem. Each year we stretch and stretch our system, and each year it becomes a little harder to follow what we do and why we do it at General Assembly. In its current printing, the Book of Church Order (from the Preliminary Principles to the end of the Rules of Discipline) is 101 pages long, the Rules of Assembly Operation (Not including the SJC Manual) is 56 pages.

Organizational surgery seems much easier to perform on young patients, at some point we all just get set in our ways.

Put another way: over one third of everything that we have to say about the organization of our denomination deals with what we do at General Assembly (an event that from start to finish is four or five days long). Perhaps the solution is not to add another rule to correct the last loophole we have found. Instead of increasing our national structure past its breaking point, we should consider if there is a way to create two or three smaller organizations that don’t need a perpetual policy machine to keep them going.

Potential Benefits

While it might be against most logic, a breaking up of the PCA into its component parts, might be a catalyst for greater cooperation and unity within the presbyterian tradition. Several years ago I had the chance to hear Dr. Taylor speak about his service on the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council. NAPARC is an ecumenical organization which brings together similar conservative Presbyterian churches. In his report he mentioned the fact that the PCA was larger than all the other members of NAPARC combined, and that our size seemed to hinder discussions of mergers or cooperation. The fact that we so outnumbered any other group made it hard for any of them to consider a deeper relationship with us.

We might also consider the Evangelical Presbyterians, a younger denomination (but one closer in to our size) that shares many of our commitments. They have a slightly more open position in a few areas, but their commitments are very similar to our own.

For most of us it is easier to look back…

Part of the problem is that presently the PCA is so large that it has decided that it will invite other denominations to join with us, and be received, but that we will not merge with others to form a new organization. If instead of one larger theologically conservative Presbyterian church we were three such smaller groups, it might make it possible for us to better cooperate with many other denominations. What I’m suggesting is that maybe for the sake of framing a larger church we first need to do some demo.

This might also give us a much need opportunity to reassess how we have interacted with other ethnic and cultural groups in America. Right now the dominant cultural paradigm of the PCA is a White South Suburban perspective. Maybe such a shake up would produce a healthier inclusion of Black Christians, Asian Christian, Latino Christian etc.

The Second potential benefit of a partitioning is the chance for local church leaders to assess their hopes for the church at large. Quite honestly, I believe that many of the problems of the PCA come down to ostrich-itis. Local church leaders are unsettled with certain things going on in the PCA (shifts to the right or to the left), but many shrug their shoulders and give up. They see the stalemate. So, they simply give up participating at a denominational level.

A break up of the denominational continent would forces churches to ask, “who should we be? What do we want our denomination to be know for?” For most of us it is easier to look back and say, “this is what we were about”, rather to look forward and say this is what we want to be about.

Each of the new denominations would look slightly different and it would give local churches the chance to say who do we best fit with, and whom do we best partner with in our local ministry.

A final benefit of a partitioning would the opportunity to refine and simplify our denominational organization. As I mentioned above, it is hard to participate in the General Assembly, and each year it seems to get harder. Additionally there seem to be dozens of competing organizations connected to and supported by parts of the denomination, all with overlapping administrative costs. As I said before, as a denomination, we seem to be stuck with what we have. Many men from newly formed presbyteries have expressed the benefits of being able to reevaluate things which were simply assumed as the status quo in their previous presbyteries. Organizational surgery seems much easier to perform on young patients, at some point we all just get set in our ways.

I know that the idea of an intentional division might seem radical or unnecessary, but consider this: If we knew of a 40 year old church that was fairly healthy but in need of some redirection, we might encourage them to consider sending out members to form a new church, or even, more radical–we might challenge them replanting as a whole. This wouldn’t magically happen, it would take intentionality to avoid sinful pride, or selfishness, but it is possible. It would necessitate long seasons of prayer, and it would take equally long seasons of gracious and honest discussions about the details of such a move. These would be hard conversation, but the outcome could potentially be multiple healthier congregations each dedicated to the work of the kingdom.

All I am proposing is that we consider a similar solution at a denominational level.

Since General Assembly the editors of v73 have been slammed with every method of insanity. We are not dead, but merely sleeping.

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?

Mental pain is less dramatic than physical pain, but it is more common and also more hard to bear. The frequent attempt to conceal mental pain increases the burden: it is easier to say “My tooth is aching” than to say “My heart is broken.” - CS Lewis, The Problem of Pain

January 2007 was pretty terrible. Just eight or nine weeks before, we found out that my wife was pregnant. This was something two years in the making and we were utterly elated. We felt it was safe to tell close family at Christmas. Then, two weeks later, it ended. The ultrasound showed death. After death, five years and tens of thousands of dollars invested in solving the problem, it still exists.

Over the past two years or so, I have slowly accepted that we are one of the 1 in 6. You may not know what that means, but they are the couples who politely nod when you innocently tease them about “starting a family.” They are the ones who skip baby showers and seem to miss the “special” services that center around motherhood or fatherhood. They are the ones who do not get invited to the “first birthday parties” because they do not have a little one to take to the party.

They are in your pew, or seat if you don’t have pews. You serve them communion. You preach sermons to them. You pray for them. You hopefully know them, but maybe you don’t.

You have to realize a few things. First, they may not meet the expectations of family, masculinity and femininity you are unintentionally setting. Second, they are still human, made in God’s image. Third, there is pain, loss and something you should enter into with a level of appropriate love. Fourth, saccharine comments about “that couple who stopped trying and had twins” are pretty hurtful and they have probably heard them from tons of well-meaning Christians. Fifth, acknowledge in your teaching that this pain exists and show how God is still there.

What can you do? Invest, love, know, share, and think. Sometimes a hug might better incarnate Romans 8:28 instead of quoting it. And, please, realize you may not be able to answer the why questions for them. Why the child abuser instead of us? Why us when we’ve done all the right things?

No 1 in 6 has the same story but somehow they share a messy story that is wrong. Be honest about it. The TV show How I Met Your Mother, hardly a champion of Christian morals, has dealt with infertility more times than we Christians seem to.  Where are the sermon applications, blog posts, Christian conferences and “Gospel centered” books that deal with this issue? Let’s take the lead.

I will never forget that terrible January. I will also never forget one of my favorite people, Wayne Sparkman, at the PCA archives, who pulled out a book of letters written by a Puritan pastor and handed it to me.  He showed me a letter written to a young woman who just lost a newborn. In that, the pastor related his own pain and how God grieves with his children, but still offers hope. Reading that letter, full of real life helped me make a little sense of the mess. Five and a half years later, I hope I can help others make sense of it a little better too.

Some people might have noticed the disappearance of an article entitled “We Should All Be Embarrassed by PCANET.org”. Well, I pulled the article until I could sit down with Rev. Robertson and get the full scoop on PCAnet.org. (That post is back up with a few updates.)

While in Louisville, Rae and I got to sit down with John Robertson and Dave Silvernail, the vice-chair of the Admin. Committee. They told us that a brand new PCAnet.org is in the works, as well as a new Administrative Committee site. Robertson made it clear that they’ve known for quite some time that these sites needed an overhaul, but that an economic climate that caused salary cuts within the Administrative Committee, made it difficult to justify the expense of the new sites.

A private donor (whom I would kiss, if I knew them) came forward and gave the Administrative Committee funds for the specific purpose of technology upgrades. They also informed us that the purported 40K price tag was not true.

The new PCAnet.org will include more information from each of the permanent committees, which will mean that, when launched, the new PCAnet.org will be more than just a landing page  and will act as a unified front door to the denominational ministries.

We didn’t get any more info about the General Assembly pages, but since they are hosted by the AC, and the new PCAAC.org will be built with WordPress we can hope that next year’s Assembly website will finally be able to escape the Geocities era.

There are a number of things to say about this year’s GA, but I wanted to throw out a few observations, as a first-timer.

The low number of ruling elder commissioners

I don’t remember the exact figures, so I’m approximating here — there were a little over 1000 commissioners at this year’s General Assembly. Of that thousand, about 300 of them were ruling elders. The rest were teaching elders. Now, most of you reading this are probably thinking something like “how cute. The n00b expects ruling elders to show up at GA!”

Yes. Yes, I do.

Every particular church in the denomination is permitted at least two RE commissioners — more, if the church is on the larger. At the very least, that’s potential for 3000 ruling elders. Three-thousand! Now, I’m not saying that it should ever be expected that every church send all of the REs that it can, nor am I saying that it’s easy for every RE to swing a trip to General Assembly every year. We generally have full-time jobs already, and governing the church generally isn’t part of the description. We have to take time off from work, time away from our families (unless they come with us), time away from our local congregations, etc. It can be tough. Not only that, but lots of our REs (not to mention our TEs) find the work of any court higher than the local session to distract from the mission. Governing the church is part and parcel of the mission, though — especially for those of us called to the office of ruling elder. WE RULE! So, let’s rule.

Where The Action Is

For those of you who don’t know, every year, presbyteries, sessions, and even individual church members can take the opportunity to send requests — called “overtures” — to the General Assembly. Before those requests make it to the floor for the consideration of the full Assembly, they are first referred to a committee, where they’re debated and voted upon at that level. Overtures sent to the GA usually fall into a few typical categories: procedural/operational, civic communications, and theological. The debate over these requests is often vigorous and detailed. Well, I volunteered, some might say foolishly, to serve on the Overtures Committee at this, my very first General Assembly. Future n00bs: I know that Sam said to avoid the Overtures Committee your first year. I didn’t follow his advice in this case and I’m glad I didn’t. Maybe it’s just my personality, but I really enjoyed it.

At the very least, I’d say that taking the time to sit in as an observer on the committee’s proceedings will be good for your preparation for the floor debates.

The Venue

I’ll just say it: this year’s venue (the Kentucky International Convention Center) wasn’t great for this kind of assembly. The layout sprawled all over the place. If you wanted wifi access through the whole facility, you had to pay $100… a day. Not only that, but they had a funeral directors’ convention scheduled at the same time as GA. Following the suited man you saw walking down the hall may have land you in a GA committee meeting… or in a seminar on new embalming technology. (I will say, though: it did afford the creation of the new super-fun guessing game “Presbyter or Funeral Director”!)

The City

On the other hand, the city of Louisville was a fantastic overall choice. Just a beautiful city with lots of stuff to do. The men of Ohio Valley Presbytery were wonderful hosts to us all.

Overall, my first General Assembly experience was great. The connections made with fellow pastors and elders from around the country, the opportunity to have a hand in our denomination’s future, and (to be honest) the chance to get away from the daily grind to do the work of the church were all a welcome change for the week. (I unfortunately didn’t get to attend any GA seminars this year, but there will be many more in years to come.)

I look forward to seeing you all in Greenville next year — especially you ruling elders.

Second, I was disturbed by a couple of things. One pastor made a comment about “liturgical anarchy” and said the Directory of Worship should have full constitutional force. Essentially, the argument was for conformity, not unity. Odd to hear something like that stated in an allegedly grassroots denomination and extremely neglectful about the historical realities of multi-culturalism. I think it is arrogant to think that one slice of the history of redemption worshipped to near biblical perfection to the exclusion of the creativity and diversity present in God’s people throughout time and culture.  That was the thrust behind the “liturgical anarchy” statement – the PCA should have one form of worship for all. I also think the African American TE sitting two rows in front of me did not seem to like that comment based upon his body language. It also felt weird to me to hear Nadab and Abihu brought into the debate. I have not heard them brought up in a worship context since my fundamentalist days when we were told electric guitars were strange fire and the old paths were our Baptist hymnals and King James Bibles. Flashback!

Third, one gentleman who supported the change made a great point, we are supposed to reform and be always reforming. I thought to myself, “yes!” and it seems the weekly, joyful, intinction guys are starting that conversation by bringing back the common cup and emphasizing the corporate nature of communion that takes into account cultural realities like germ fears, etc. We also know that intinction occurred in the RPCES, PCUSA and probably the UPC. Those are our immediate predecessors, not the Puritans.

Fourth, much was made of “separate actions” and “eat and drink.” Awesome. For a room full of M.Divs, MAs, STMs, ThDs and PhDs, we never engaged how much of a descriptive passage becomes prescriptive. Should we sit around a table? One loaf even for our large churches? One cup? Locally-sourced unleavened bread? The order in which we sing songs the way the first communion occurred? What do we do about that pesky Judas taking the supper?

Fifth, the Bible, Westminster Standards and BCO clearly state “wine” for the sacrament. Why don’t we start there? Grape juice is a pragmatic, 19th century innovation that is widespread among our American, pietist Christian culture. Why do we allow that?

Lastly, one of the issues raised by opponents of intinction is pragmatism. The bottom line for me is this: which is more pragmatic? Adopting individualistic American practices of infrequent memorialist communion with Welch’s and a chiclet-sized pressed bread substance or something that makes attempts to do justice to the corporate nature of the sacrament and done weekly, reverently, joyfully and differently than the widespread Fundamentalist/Evangelical status quo?

We say the sacraments are important. If our practices look more like the memorialist traditions, then they are not. I think there is a conversation to be had concerning the PCA and how we view and practice the Lord’s Supper, and it is not about intinction.