One of the questions that has faced churches around the world in this present crisis of Covid 19, is “How in these times of non-assembly do we genuinely do church?” Many answers have arisen, and churches have met the challenge in creative ways. These include live streamed services, video recordings, audio recordings, Zoom and Face live on-line meetings. By and large, churches seem to have been able to continue sharing in the essential elements of worship such as prayer, worship in song, the reading of the scriptures, relevant liturgy, and the preaching of the word. But two elements of worship have proved particularly problematic: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. How does the church practice these ordinances in a time of forced separation and even more basically, can a church practice these biblically in a time of forced separation?
Because it is the less frequent of the two ordinances, baptism does not raise nearly as many questions as does the Lord’s Supper. After all, a person can wait a few months for baptism without any adverse impact and the Bible sets the precedent of individual baptism in the baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch by Philip as recorded in Acts 8. However, most churches practice the Lord’s Supper far more often than they perform baptisms. Some churches have the Lord’s Supper once a month, others every week in every corporate worship service. Churches have had to wrestle with the issue, “Can a church biblically celebrate together the Lord’s Supper when they are not able to gather together physically for that meal?”
Over the Zimbabwe shut down period, we have had three Lord’s Supper services at Covenanters Christian Church. The Elders of Covenanters Christian Church believe it is not unbiblical to do Communion (the Lord’s Supper) in our dispersed condition. In our case, we have adopted a pre-recorded audio mp3 service as our “service delivery” and we incorporate the Lord’s Supper into that service. We strive to have careful preparation in terms of biblical instruction, and we follow the procedure of I Corinthians 11, allowing people to pause the recording for their own times of prayer, reflection, and partaking of the elements.
Why are we, as the Elders, convinced that such a practice is biblically permissible, in contrast to many others who have felt biblically constrained to stop? We think it is helpful to first present the reasons most often raised against “on-line” dispersed celebrations of the Lord’s Supper. Certainly, the strongest argument, one which we feel has significant weight, is that in Paul’s teaching in I Corinthians 11, the Lord’s Supper takes place when the Church gathers. Five times over Paul states that the Lord’s Supper is taking place when the church comes together in verses 17, 18, 20, 33, 34. Now that “coming together” is more than merely a physical happening, it is powerfully meaningful in that the many are joined as one. In chapter 10:17, speaking of sharing in the bread of the Lord’s table, it says,
“Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.”
Some argue strongly from I Corinthians 10:17 that the Lord’s Supper is “a shared meal”, and that to remove the symbolic action of the shared meal is to remove an essential symbol of the ordinance. To quote one author,
“Though the action of a shared meal and the context of the covenant assembly are not sufficient conditions for celebrating the Lord’s Supper, they are necessary conditions.” 1
The argument concludes that physically gathering is an essential element of the Lord’s Supper. Without the physical gathering, any Supper cannot be the Lord’s Supper.
A second argument arises in some circles that the Lord has appointed. To quote the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 29, Section 3, He has appointed,
“His ministers to declare his word of institution to the people; to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation”.
The argument is simply this, that without the presence of Christ’s ministers, ordained in part to preside over the Lord’s Supper, there can be no partaking of the Lord’s Supper.
Now having argued in this way, those who hold this position strongly affirm that it is not ideal to withhold the Lord’s Supper from God’s people, that as an important means of grace, it is important to the spiritual health of God’s people. However, in the light of these biblical arguments, Christians, they argue, must recognise that this is a time to fast and not to feast, and to lament the loss of this important part of worship.
In the light of these arguments, how have we as a church felt biblically justified in celebrating the Lord’s Supper? Well for us, the issue is simple and our point of variance from the above position is simple. While we agree that the corporate physical gathering is an important part of the Lord’s supper, and the physical presence of Christ’s under-shepherds is ideal, we do not agree that the over-riding symbol of the Lord’s Supper is that of a physically shared meal. We see that I Corinthians 10:17 points not primarily to a physically shared meal as much as to a spiritually shared meal, that offered by Jesus in John 6 and elaborated by Paul in I Corinthians 11. We believe that those who present these arguments are making the symbolism of the physically shared meal more important than the symbolism of sharing in Christ. It seems to us that while Paul indicates that this meal took place when the church came together, he does not make the coming together the key issue. The key issue with him is the remembrance, and celebration together (as much as we are able to make that together wherever we are) of the broken body and poured out blood of Christ. If due to circumstances beyond our control that dictate it taking place together in a variety of physical locations, then it should take place.
It is interesting in this discussion of physical and “spiritual” presence, that Paul earlier had spoken earlier in 1 Corinthians, spoken of the possibility of being present spiritually, even though not physically there. In I Corinthians 5:3, when in the context of church discipline, he speaks of himself as being “present in spirit.”
In the discussion of the need for the physical gathering of the church, it is also interesting that Acts 2:42-47 speaks of the early believers “breaking bread from house to house” v. 46. Surely this establishes precedent for the Lord’s Supper in smaller communities than the whole gathered church.
Whilst respecting Reformed brothers and sisters who take a contrary view, we also do not believe that the Bible supports the idea that an ordained and recognised minister of the gospel has to preside over the Lord’s Supper and disburse the elements. Such a stance seems to us too much like the very sacerdotalism of both elements and priest, that the Reformation took issue with, with the Church of Rome historically.
We have pastoral concerns also in a position that says only in the physically gathered corporate worship services can the Lord’s Supper take place. Does this mean that Christians who for other reasons than the lockdown pandemic are separated from the body of God’s people, are prohibited from partaking of the Lord’s Supper? Must believers on long journeys not share in this central sacrament of their faith? What about prisoners, even prisoners for Christ, isolated in cells? What about those who are sick in the hospital or bed ridden at home because of serious illness? Will advocates of the “no on-line Lord’s Supper” withhold the powerfully strengthening sacrament of the Lord’s Supper to these because the whole church has not physically gathered? Surely one of the things about the Lord’s Supper is that if we must partake in isolation, the meal itself reminds us that we are not in isolation. We are joined to a wide body of fellow partakers. We find it problematic as well that to speak of the church’s physical gathering to be essential, how many people would legitimately comprise the gathered church? It is a majority of members? Do 2 or 3 constitute a legitimate gathering? Certainly Jesus seemed to think so in Matthew 18:20, when He spoke of (church) discipline.
Now we hasten to add that this present situation of “on-line Lord’s Suppers” is not ideal, and certainly, were it not for these extreme conditions we would not take this route. Nor do we hold that this arrangement is normal, it certainly is not. We long for the day when again we can and will physically assemble and physically share together the Lord’s Supper in the most ideal way. Until then though, we will continue to practice the Lord’s Supper in a less than ideal, but, we believe, biblically permitted way.
1. https://www.scottrswain.com/2020/03/03 /should-we-live-stream-the-lords-supper/