Covid-19, Virtual Meetings, and Communion
In response to a question from one of the people in our church, I asked several friends in the ministry for their take. The question was along these lines, “I noticed that X Church across town holds a ‘virtual communion’ with their services. Should we do something like that?” My instinct throughout this crisis is that something is “off” about “virtual communion,” so we have not done it.
In British Columbia, we were under a lockdown order from mid-March through the end of May. We resumed services in June, but held off on communion even then, following the advice of the government directives. After some weeks, we thought through a way to hold a communion service in a way that satisfied us as to “distancing” recommendations. The first communion service last summer was especially meaningful.
This winter, beginning in mid-November, churches were again forbidden from meeting and we are still on a shut-down order until at least February 5, 2021. I know each area has different policies. Some places have prohibited meetings since March with no opening up at all up until now. We aren’t happy with these circumstances, but have little control over the events.
Given the shut-down and knowing full well the importance of the communion service in the life of the church, the question of what to do about it while prohibited from meeting takes on increasing urgency in our hearts. Should we think about conducting a virtual communion service?
Those who replied to my query were, to a man, against the notion. This correlates with my own instincts as mentioned above. I hadn’t given the matter a lot of thought, however, so the comments and insights of my friends are helpful. Even more than that, however, I think we gain a deeper appreciation for the church and the Lord’s great gift to us in founding the church as the vehicle within which we live out our Christian lives.
Virtual vs. Actual Communion
We need more than instinct to guide us, so each of my correspondents appealed to the Bible. Several mentioned 1 Cor 11.33:
1Co 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
One wrote, “But even in extenuating circumstances and an advanced technological age I give pause when I read 1 Corinthians 11:33 — ‘So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat wait for one another.’ There doesn’t seem to be room for ‘virtual communion’ in that verse.”
Another said, “When you consider that 1 Corinthians 11 mentions ‘when you come together’ at least four times, we decided to wait until we began to meet together before observing the Lord’s Supper again.” (I checked, and 1 Co 11 actually uses the term five times!)
A third correspondent, mentioning one of those other times, wrote, “We decided that the communion service should be practiced in a public setting based on 1 Cor. 11:20.”
1Co 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.
One of our regular contributors, Brent Niedergall, gave a more extended treatment of 1 Cor 11.20:
A When ye come together therefore into one place,
B this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.
That first part that I’ve labeled A about coming together into one place sets the stage for the action that follows in B. If you’re familiar with the context of 1 Corinthians, you probably remember they were failing miserably in their observance of this ordinance. There was division. Some were turning it into a party while others were totally left out. Because they were divided Paul rebukes them and says whatever they are doing, it is not observing the Lord’s Supper. Which makes it quite appropriate that Paul sets the stage for their division with their very action of coming together. The circumstances for their observance of the Lord’s Supper, mis-observed as it was, was them coming together into one place.
Although they were observing the Lord’s Supper wrongly in Corinth, the state of affairs for their observance—coming together into one place— wasn’t the part Paul took issue with. The Lord’s Supper required this action of gathering together in one place. The prepositional phrase “into one place” (epi to auto) further reinforces what we see with the verb Paul chose. To “come together” (sunerchomai) is defined in the standard lexicon of New Testament Greek as “to come together with others as a group” (969). No surprises here. But it makes it absolutely clear that Paul knew of no other way to observe the Lord’s Supper than the group assembling together in the same place. Paul could have stuck with “coming together” and left it at that. But he further specified “into one place.” … I know Paul and the Corinthians didn’t have YouTube or Zoom, but Paul was not content to leave their action as “gathering together,” which we might be able to say a contemporary church can do over the internet. Writing an inspired rebuke, he also recognized the significance of gathering together at the same place. For Paul there was absolutely no other way to observe the Lord’s Supper.
As you can see, we are making a heavy emphasis on the concept of gathering together as the Scripturally appropriate environment for partaking of the Lord’s Supper. With modern technology, we can readily grasp the concept of a virtual meeting, a coming together via electronic means. We should thank the Lord the technology exists, it helps us “limp along” in these hard days as viable church bodies. Could you imagine how much harder it would be if we were under these orders with no such technology? What would that do to our spiritual lives? What would it do to our churches? Nevertheless, we see that conservative pastors emphasize actual gathering together as essential to a Biblical celebration of the Lord’s Supper.
Why is “actual gathering” so important?
Interestingly, reluctance to conduct online communion services comes from both the Reformed camp and from amongst independent Baptists and other conservatives who are decidedly not Reformed. The common denominator seems to be a conservative approach to Biblical practice rather than commonality in ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church). The difference in doctrine means the arguments against the practice will differ slightly, but conservatives from both camps think we shouldn’t allow it.
Another of our regular contributors, Joel Arnold, sent a link and assessment of the arguments put forward by a Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) pastor. Here is how Joel sums up this pastor’s argument:
- Exegetical reason—1 Corinthians uses “when you gather together” language (3x+). So it is corporate by definition.
- Theological reason—Something is real happening during communion—the “real presence of Christ”—specifically His divine nature.
- A Sacramental reason—It is meant to be celebrated together in the community of the church. It isn’t personal and individual.
- A Practical reason—If we are careful to fence the table, the internet makes it far too easy to abuse.
With Joel, we are uncomfortable with the word “sacrament” in connection with the Lord’s Supper, and we strongly disagree with the Reformed “real presence of Christ” notion. Having said that, let’s think about the issue in terms of these four categories.
Exegetical Reason
As you might see from the points offered earlier this article, we are in concord with the exegetical reason. In a way, this should be all we need. The Scripture is quite clear that the service involves real assembly, it is a corporate service and not one that can we can practice “on our own” at home as a devotional exercise. Besides the “when you gather together” language, Paul makes it clear in an earlier passage of 1 Corinthians that part of the symbolism of the meal rests in the unity of the substance from which each one partakes.
1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
There is one cup and one bread and one body (albeit we rarely, in our circles, participate in what we call a “common chalice,” still the juice comes from one source). The point is that in the unitary substance of the meal, the body reflects its unity in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is a corporate exercise around one table. It is hard to see how this unity can be reflected in an online service – the only unity is a unity of action at a simultaneous time. Not one loaf. Not one cup.1
Exegetically, then, we must gather together in one place around one cup and one loaf to celebrate the Supper.
Theological reason
Well, here we depart from our Reformed brethren. Joel Arnold commented on this, “I nearly read the data in the opposite direction—the physical absence of Christ (the centerpiece is missing) makes us wait with longing ‘until He comes.’” I hadn’t considered that point before, but I think that is exactly right and gets to a crucial difference between our view and the Reformed view.
The Supper celebrates the Lord’s absence. The words, “ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Cor 11.26) speak of the Lord’s absence. Jesus promised in the institution of the Supper that “I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.” He promised to come. When we gather together to celebrate the Supper, it communicates our unity in His work of the past, but it also quite clearly communicates our united participation in the Blessed Hope, that he will come again and we will sup with him in that day.
Joel Arnold again: “Even so, the gathering of believers together physically is part of creating that longing for the future marriage supper of the Lamb when He will be present.”
That’s it. Perhaps this impulse drives our anxiety in this time of Covid separation, but we shouldn’t short-circuit the Blessed Hope with a “virtual gathering.” We won’t sit at the marriage supper of the Lamb watching the proceedings on video screens. The logistics might be immense, but the gathering, we believe, will be real. We will be there.
“Sacramental” reason
We don’t just depart from this Reformed point of view, we run shrieking in the other direction! We reject sacramentalism entirely. As we’ve noted in the exegetical section, the Supper is meant to be celebrated corporately, not individually, but we see no sacramental reason for or against the Supper in any time or place.
A note of definition here, a sacrament is “a rite (as baptism or the Eucharist) that is believed to have been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality”2 Further, sacramentalism is “belief that the sacraments are inherently efficacious and necessary for salvation.”3 We just don’t find this meaning at all in the Lord’s Supper and we find the explanation by the Reformed pastor in the linked video to be simply odd.
Practical reason
On this one, Joel summarized the argument this way, “If we are careful to fence the table, the internet makes it far too easy to abuse.” There is some difference among us on whether communion should be open, closed, or close. I won’t get into that debate here, because I think that whatever view you hold under those three headers, you can agree with this statement:
An online streaming “communion service” provides no way to limit the participants so that those who should not partake are excluded in any way.
I describe my view as “open communion,” based on Paul’s instructions “let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.” (1 Cor 11.28). Nevertheless, when we hold the service, I provide guidance on how you should examine yourself, the criteria, and guidance for parents with young children, and so on. Others who are more restrictive, will only allow members, or at least only regular attenders to participate. In any case, we take the admonitions of Scripture very seriously here.
How is it possible to provide proper limitations when a communion service is streamed online? Even a somewhat limited Zoom session still suffers here, with the other limitations mentioned above.
Concluding matters
First, I’d like to offer more from Joel Arnold as he sums up his thoughts:
The biggest thing that gives me pause on this is that the evangelical churches that were already doing a multi-campus model, etc., jumped right into this. They are the people that don’t really think carefully about their ecclesiology and it shows. The churches that have historically been very careful about their ecclesiology (ie Nine Marks) are the ones that came out strongly to not observe this. Same with the Fundamentalist churches I know of that are most thoughtful. I also find carefully articulated reasoning for why not to do it, but less theological analysis on why to do it. In fact, a search for “reasons to celebrate” yields articles on why not to do it! That makes me think the online celebration viewpoint might be more a position of default with weaker arguments.
Another Canadian pastor shared these thoughts:
My response to the request [for “online communion”] was that this yearning is something I share and am glad to see. However, there is some value in preserving the observance of it to an in-person service. Similarly, I do not pour or sprinkle someone who wants to be baptized if they are not able to be immersed. The symbolism is important. And while it could be maintained that we take the elements together, part of the symbolism, I believe, includes the distribution of the elements, the oversight of the deacons/elders, the prayer, and the reading of Scripture. There is an immediacy of it.
Finally, a point of clarification as we close out this discussion. What I offer here is a reasoned application of the Bible. Each pastor, each church, should come to their own conclusions based on what the Bible says. Each of us is accountable to God. The thoughts expressed here hopefully provide a Biblically faithful application of Scripture.
For my part, I vote, “No,” about virtual communion. And I eagerly look forward with relish to gathering together once again. The first Sunday will include a renewal of our Communion Service.
Don Johnson is the pastor of Grace Baptist Church of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.
Communion by Ben Davis from the Noun Project
Laptop by Fasobrun Jamil from the Noun Project
- For more on the “one bread” point, see this post: Can We Celebrate Communion Online? : 9Marks [↩]
- Frederick C. Mish, ed., Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed. (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003). [↩]
- Ibid. [↩]