- Distance does matter. While there is no biblical or theological mandate saying "the distance of the hearing of the word to the people must not exceed..." it does matter. We know that, for example, by the fact that the words of institution must accompany the elements and distribution and that they were to be done loudly and not whispered. The emphasis in this was on the people's hearing. But it reminds us that these things rightly go together. How then do we determine when they are separated? Why is the amplification of a sound system to the back of the church or the narthex/basement of a full gathering acceptable but not online? Well, I think the very fact that one creates controversy while the others didn't suggests there is something fundamentally different. Online communion is more akin to situations of tv communion or phone communion than simply situations of amplification, and those are something we never suggested as acceptable even with our sick or homebound members. And I think the defining characteristic is space. While sound systems help share the word in the space where the people have gathered (including through walls), these other forms transmit to some other space. In short, the controversy comes when we transgress the lines of the gathered space. Digital gathering lacks the physicality of space, and the sacraments are by their nature a very physical and spacial thing. That is, according to Luther, part of their importance.
- The Corinthian controversy. I cannot get over the fact that Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 chastises the people of Corinth for partaking in communion in a manner where some are eating everything and some come and get nothing. The problem with digital communion is it expects everyone to have the elements to participate. Even if I were to drop off elements at all my members' homes we regularly get attendance from other individuals, sometimes states away. In worship we welcome all baptized believers to the table and let them examine themselves if they wish to partake. And if they in faith desire it we make sure they have access to the sacrament. In this, we cannot truly welcome them all to the table because not everyone may have access because they lack the elements. And I cannot stand the idea of making people watch themselves being excluded from the Lord's Supper because their grocery list didn't meet the requirements.
- Who is presiding (and what does that mean in this context)? Presiding over the sacrament has typically meant presiding over the entire act of consecration and distribution. In this context, the pastor could only preside over the consecration (sort of, since the pastor is not by the elements) and someone from the home would preside over the distribution. In our tradition, the act of presiding in the absence of the pastor is limited. It is limited to trusted individuals, often with the support not only of the congregation but the synodical bishop. There is some form of a call even if only a temporary one. In the case of online communion, a multitude of individuals are tasked, elected from within the home with no input by the wider church (congregation, synod, or otherwise). While on paper it seems like little could go wrong if directed by the pastor (after all, pastors give directions to individuals and congregations regarding communion all the time), a lot actually could with little to no accountability or oversight. Here are two simple examples:
Jane decides to commune her cats, since they sit in worship with her as she watches each week.
Bill has no bread and wine, so he opts for Snickers and Coke as elements.
Now some pastors may not consider these as serious as I do. And yet they go beyond the bounds of what we would (or should) do in the sacrament had it taken place in person. The first is kinda sweet, but yet the sacraments are by all biblical indications for people only. The second shows the limits of adiaphora in the sacrament. For while we have some wiggle room in regards to the elements (unleavened/leavened bread or wine/grape juice for example) I do not believe we have unfettered freedom in regards to the elements where any substitute will do. And while Bill was doing the best he could (because he did not want to be excluded for not having the elements - see issue 2) how does one later say that may not have been the sacrament? Faithfulness to the sacrament I think goes beyond intention (which in both scenarios are good ones). The presider has a responsibility to see everything done according to the gospel so that there be no reason to doubt the sacrament or fear it being used in a manner that could cause offense. Whose responsibility is that? If it is mine (which I think it is), I do not feel I could do it adequately. - We reject individual communion. To do this, some individuals who worship alone will be asked to commune themselves. Private communion as personal devotion is expressly forbidden within the Lutheran Confessions. Additionally, we have not ever encouraged our homebound members previously to commune themselves. Even in historical circumstances of isolation from church/pastors the Lutheran church has not advocated for self-communing but instead to rely on other means of grace. This was the primary response of our greater church at the outset of the pandemic: lean into the grace of the Word and your baptism. While online worship is a different context than say the lone-communing devotion in the Reformation times, I'm not sure we can simply assume communion in isolation to be now acceptable. And we still ought ask this question: does communion require at least two people? Does the other person being "on the screen" count? Consider especially how we've been able to identify (and have done so for years) the shortcomings of presence and relationship through digital means. Communion is a preached act accompanied by physical sharing. Jesus takes the bread, breaks it, and gives it to them saying... I think we are lying if we cannot admit already the shortcomings of digital media in conveying the preaching, how much more the physical sharing?
- Home churches and worship from home are not the same. A common argument is that the church met in homes for years. Why are we now insisting it has to happen in our building (especially when most pastors try so hard to say the church is not the building)? The answer is that there is a fundamental difference from worshiping from home and a home as a church: a home church was a home used as a church for any christian who gathered there. It was considered a public assembly even in a private home. Consider even the word the New Testament uses for church - ekklesia. The word was used for when people left the privacy of their homes to gather in a public space for an assembly. Worshiping from home is still by and large worshiping from the privacy of your own home not opening your home up to worship. We aren't usually inviting people (except maybe family), it isn't a designated gathering for the ekklesia - the church. It is a place where we are tuning into where the gathering is centered (and note, that centering is not the pastor but the Word. The church for this function has ministers, not the minister making the church). Consider especially the many church services that are not two-way media like Zoom but one way medium like a Facebook Live video. Everyone can in a way gather with me where the Word is being shared, but not I with them. There is also then a shortcoming of what it means to gather. We can connect - even meaningfully - but that is not the same as gathering. The myriad of people who desire our in-person worship to resume so they can be with their brothers and sisters, the years of shut-ins who tell you watching on tv is not the same all attest to the fact that whatever form of gathering or church is happening when we tune in, there is something gravely lacking. The biblical ecclesiology is not (as it is often miscast) "you are the church" but "you all are the church". You individually are but a part of the church as Paul says "you (plural) are the body of Christ and individually members of it."
- Perhaps it's better to refrain from the sacrament than doubt it or cause others to. Paul was glad he only baptized a few people in Corinth. It's one of the strangest passages in scripture unless we consider why; namely, baptism (and who did the baptizing) was part of the lines of division in the church. It is bad enough and grievous enough that the sacraments are one of the most clear areas of division in the ecumenical church today. When I consider that in recent years some of the greatest area of controversy in our denomination revolves around the Sacrament of the Altar I don't think it is good that we are adopting so quickly a new and highly debated practice. While our church embraces a lot of diversity in practice (even around the sacrament) our high view of the sacrament (right administration is one of the marks of the church) makes the wide embrace of any diverse practice essential in order for it to be embraced by the church. Splintered practice (which is different from diverse practice) sows the seeds of doubt for the community of faith, which is antithetical to the purpose of the sacraments. While uniformity is not the necessary answer, greater agreement on what practices are still "according to the gospel" is.
- There are other innovative methods that cause less offense. I realize part of this change in stance for some is because we are looking at the long haul. When my parish first canceled in-person worship, we did so for two weeks, fully expecting to be back for Palm Sunday. Then we realized it would stretch past Easter (I wept, literally wept, over not having communion for Maundy Thursday), then through April, then May, and all of June and now most if not all of July. The long game is part of why some are starting to say, "It's one thing to go a few weeks without communion, but now we're talking months." Luther said in the Large Catechism a Christian should desire the sacrament often. But he also said it should be according to our opportunity as well. Just as congregations at times have had to endure longer periods without the sacrament because the lack of a pastor kept them from the opportunity, so we should acknowledge that the age of Covid may limit our opportunities too. We should not be burdened by our inability to receive it. Communion is for us, not us for communion. Christ did not give it to be a burden. But also, as we pastors see the need (for Luther says we should receive according to need and opportunity) we may start trying to find ways to commune our brethren. But I would note that in our synod alone a myriad of means of communion have been experimented that far as I can tell carry far less controversy and concern as digital communion. This eliminates the right of necessity. Just as the church has not in extreme times in its past allowed private, personal communion out of necessity, so I do not see how we can claim necessity for digital communion when other means are available to us that would by their less offense be of greater value to the whole church.
- We don't make communion. It is not our good pastoral intentions, nor our "magic hands" of the ordained, nor the deep faith of those partaking that makes communion what it is. It is Christ alone who can make communion what it is. Theology of the cross says we must lay aside our glory searching and test everything according to Christ and his cross that empties us of all spiritual innovation. This is why faithful administration is a big deal. It's not about some new form of legalism (which it can become). It must be about the only way we can trust in the sacrament is by trusting in God. And the best way to do that is faithfulness to the institution that promises us communion with Christ. That's why these things are so important to me. I do not doubt the wisdom, passion, love, or faith of those who suggest or partake in online communion. I do not doubt that people who have practiced it have found it to be meaningful. But our meaning is not what makes it what it is. No doubt those who practice online communion are leaning on this theology and the sufficiency of Christ's word wherever it is shared, but it also means that concerns around this practice are not small ones or to be dismissed. And arguments of intention, or not so much caring because one thinks Christ can accommodate it or other claims that minimize the concern will not suffice for me. Nor will arguments of adiaphora or diverse practice as this reminds us of the limits of such arguments in regards to that which Christ has commanded the church to do.
While these words will perhaps feel as an attack by some, I submit them in a spirit of collegiality and a mutual desire to seek the good of the whole church as we discern this issue. Any argument I challenge that have been made by specific people is not meant to be a challenge of that person but merely to engage the arguments I have come across as this issue rages in our church. Perhaps I am on the wrong side of this debate, perhaps I too will be persuaded. Every pastor committed to the truth of the Gospel and the authority of the Word must be open to the possibility of their own error. But I respectfully submit these brief points to the table of discussion.
***Later Addition: This post is intended to show the shortcomings of online worship regarding Holy Communion, and is not a condemnation of the practice of online worship itself. A defense of such can be seen in my post on faith and fear.
