There are numerous discussions on the Lord’s Supper today. But they are not the common discussions among Reformed, Lutheran, and Evangelicals. Those distinctions are pronounced historically and we debate the objective merits of each position. Rather, the shape of modern debates on the Supper has to do with how we partake of the elements when we are not gathered together doing worship on Sunday.a It’s safe to assert that most congregations in America are wrestling with this question. No one is immune to it. Even evangelical traditions that practice the Lord’s Supper infrequently (monthly or quarterly) have to tackle the matter since none of us can determine how long this virus will plague the country.
There are still some churches meeting on Sundays, though with limited numbers and with abundant caution, but I am not speaking to those rare groups. I would like to address the thousands of churches that moved to some form of virtual practice. At the outset, it’s important to note that I am not aware of any pastor who is taking these decisions lightly. Some have wrestled with these questions in profound ways. Some sessions have not reached a consensus, adding another layer to the headache. These are difficult days. But every decision has consequences.
In large evangelical churches with hundreds of households, it is likely that members will take matters into their own hands. A pastor or a group of pastors cannot be sacramental policemen. People will adjust and their adjustment will be a clear manifestation of their theological paradigms.
I recall meeting an old Episcopal deacon about a decade ago. He attended a fairly well-known parish in town. In our conversation, he shared with me how excited he was to do the Lord’s Supper with the youth group that night. When I inquired, he related that instead of bread and wine, he was going to bring Pepsi and crackers. He was thrilled with the prospect of doing communion in a “fresh new way.” I did not take the time to protest. My disappointment was too great.
That dreadful story, unfortunately, is an illustration of the kinds of creativity we are seeing in some churches today among parishioners. I have heard countless stories of families partaking of the Lord’s Supper alone at night, or even of pastors encouraging their people to drink and eat in their separate homes after hearing the pastor deliver a sermon on-line.b. Dr. Scott Swain summarizes the case against such practices:
A sacrament, at the most basic level, is a symbolic action ordained by Jesus Christ to which he has attached the promise of his presence and blessing (Exod 20:24; Matt 28:18-20; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 10:1-4, 16; 11:24-25). The “sign,” on this understanding, is not simply the “elements” of water, bread, and wine. The sign is the entirety of the symbolic action which, in the case of the Lord’s Supper, is a shared meal (1 Cor 10:17). Moreover, when it comes to the Lord’s Supper, the symbolic action of a shared meal has a specific, divinely ordained context: “when you come together” (1 Cor 11:33).
This apostolic imperative of togetherness is all over the Epistle to the Corinthians. It is not a spiritual togetherness but a fleshly togetherness. When individual families or individuals are taking upon themselves the ritual of the Supper they are forsaking this crucial Pauline imperative. Further, they are diminishing the significance of the meal. Extraordinary times do not justify trivializing the Supper or taking it out of its original setting.c. The church is deeply impoverished when it takes this perspective and the Supper takes a back seat to theological pragmatism.
Many comments today echo a form of Gnosticism when it comes to church. Some will boldly state that the church is not a building, but the people. While that statement may seem innocent, it has serious implications. First, because the Apostle Paul calls us a building:
For we are co-workers in God’s service; you are God’s field, God’s building.
The Apostle compares God’s people to a foundation. It does not mean that if a hurricane came and hindered us from meeting in a particular location, therefore we would not be the church, but it does mean that we are building blocks, stones, and furniture in God’s holy temple.
But secondly, we must be cautious lest we embrace a view of life that takes the Christian away from sacred space to form our own autonomous spaces. We meet together to eat together in a building together, a building which however small or great stands for the space that God calls us to unite as one body eating one loaf, not twenty loaves.
These days offer us moments of great reflection. The Church is scattered in the city. Families and friends cannot hug, kiss, or shake hands and the Lord’s Supper, that meaningful grace to the Church, is far from reach. Our approach should not be to take it at all costs or adjust as we see fit but allow the Supper to maintain its proper role in the life of the Church. We eat and drink when we are together as a body ordinarily led by the physical presence of an ordained minister. When we are apart, and this pattern is not present, we wait. If we decide to eat and drink alone, the very purpose of the Supper is thwarted. We must all wait in anticipation for the first Sunday when we will join with our bodies the corporate assembly. Then, we will feast again as God intended.
- Some may opine that we do worship anytime, but this is a silly analogy. The Bible places the corporate worship as the primary act of worship among other acts of worship through the week (back)
- There is a case for a drive-through system where saints take the elements from an ordained minister and take it as they receive on the church’s parking lot. We can say they are eating together as one, rather than in isolation (back)
- There is also a case for having various ordained ministers administering the Supper to folks in nursing homes or in regular homes in times of great trial. Note that this is not a household communion, but the proper administration comes from men called to serve the body. These exceptions are offered in most denominations manuals. What I am arguing against is the individualization of the sacraments apart from the togetherness of the body and the presence of a church officer (back)
