Worship can be livestreamed, but communion can't? Part Two: Principles

[Rob Morris]

Rather than get into extended back-and-forths about specifics, allow me to start a new thread to propose what I think a few principles should be in extraordinary times:

1) Though innovation is unavoidable, the less innovating the better.

None of our churches is functioning as normal. All of us have introduced novel practices previously unknown within our lifetimes - we should be honest about that.

But the less novelty the better.

This isn't just a conservative thing. There are many reasons for this. Firstly, a hurricane is a bad time to start testing new designs for lifeboats. If it wasn't a good idea a month ago, can you be sure it's a good idea now?

Connected to that, decisions made under severe stress and time pressure are less likely to be carefully-thought-through and thoughtfully applied.

Lastly, in times of crisis, the greatest human needs are documented to be predictability and agency. People need to know what's coming and to feel they have some control over their own circumstances. Whole-scale innovations actually lessen the first, though watching Pr. Tricker's video, I saw loads of evidence that he and his people are leaning hard into the second.

2) Even within innovation, the greater the connection to regular practice, the better.

I know that some churches value "creative thinking" as being "part of their DNA". That's a discussion for another day. But even those churches probably aren't introducing some new worship format or disbanding their praise bands or their choirs at this time. Staying the course as much as possible is an obvious principle that most churches are at least partly following.

On the one hand, the mega-churches are really stuck... Since my regular Sunday attendance is 100, and many have self-quarantined or are avoiding all outside-the-home contact, I can still meet in church and fulfill all of both the state's and the CDC's requirements (last Sunday's attendance: 33, all sanitized and at least 6 ft apart). But a church with weekend attendance of 2,000 cannot. On the other hand, a church with attendance of 2,000 usually has a pastoral staff of 6, 8, or even 10 rostered workers. My church has 1. I know it depends on each state and municipality's regs, but a church with a pastoral staff of 10 and a large facility has a lot of options that don't necessarily have to involve anything brand-new.

And since most pastors are not pastoring mega-churches, what options are closest to regular practice? These options are probably to be preferred.

These are two examples of principles I think churches must be discussing right now... Other ideas?

[Rob Morris]

I received two private messages that I think add:

First - I should have more clearly distinguished that the CDC has guidelines and the states and municipalities (and even ecclesiastical structures) have requirements. A helpful distinction.

Second - a proposal for a third principle:
3) The less the practice differs from the larger Church, the better.
In a private message, another pastor shared an example of an alteration he wished to make, but after consulting with other pastors in the circuit, opted not to make. I think this level of communication and support between fellow churches and pastors is extremely healthy.

Pr. Speckhard had also shared a similar thought within the last few days, which I think is very helpful. In the LCMS, we can use our structure to help guide our thinking and practice. Compared to my circuit, district, synod... how much is my proposed solution at odds with the practices of the other churches with whom I am in fellowship?

I like the unity vs. uniformity distinction here. In my circuit, 3 out of the 8 churches (plus one coverage-arranged situation) are following a practice similar to mine - encouragement to livestream, but doors open if guidelines are followed. The other 5 have slightly different practices, but all of us are in communication with each other (disclosure: I am the Circuit Visitor) and able to express mutual support and care for one another. Not uniformity, but unity.

[John_Hannah]

I received two private messages that I think add:

First - I should have more clearly distinguished that the CDC has guidelines and the states and municipalities (and even ecclesiastical structures) have requirements. A helpful distinction.

Second - a proposal for a third principle:
3) The less the practice differs from the larger Church, the better.
In a private message, another pastor shared an example of an alteration he wished to make, but after consulting with other pastors in the circuit, opted not to make. I think this level of communication and support between fellow churches and pastors is extremely healthy.

Pr. Speckhard had also shared a similar thought within the last few days, which I think is very helpful. In the LCMS, we can use our structure to help guide our thinking and practice. Compared to my circuit, district, synod... how much is my proposed solution at odds with the practices of the other churches with whom I am in fellowship?

I like the unity vs. uniformity distinction here. In my circuit, 3 out of the 8 churches (plus one coverage-arranged situation) are following a practice similar to mine - encouragement to livestream, but doors open if guidelines are followed. The other 5 have slightly different practices, but all of us are in communication with each other (disclosure: I am the Circuit Visitor) and able to express mutual support and care for one another. Not uniformity, but unity.

Good principle:  3) The less the practice differs from the larger Church, the better.

I would expand your explanation to include Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Anglicanism. From and with these fellow Christians we have received the Great Tradition of pastoral and liturgical practice.

That does not mean we are slaves to whatever one or more of them is doing. It does not mean that we use the Latin Mass translated into English nor the older Book of Common Prayer.

In this case, none are practicing live stream communion nor would be likely to even think of doing it.

Luther wrote in the Catechism, "In the same way he calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith." He had in mind more than those very few churches that had joined the Reformation by 1529.

Peace, JOHN

[Weedon]

4. That Innovation which introduces doubt and uncertainty into the Sacrament is eo ipso to be avoided.

[Rob Morris]

4. That Innovation which introduces doubt and uncertainty into the Sacrament is eo ipso to be avoided.

I agree entirely with the sentiment, but I think I would broaden it out, in light especially of Paul's repeated instructions regarding weaker and stronger brothers. Something like:

4. Any innovation which unnecessarily challenges the faith of a fellow Christian is to be avoided.
For me, someone can still say in regard to the sacrament: "The Word is present and faith is present... these are what Luther says are necessary and therefore, what's the problem?" But Scripturally, just because I don't have a problem, I am not thereby justified in introducing a practice if it causes others doubt.

This is where I think churches have erred that have charged ahead with a practice that they had to know would stir controversy. They acted as though the strength of their faith was the only factor, when Paul makes it clear that this is not the case.

[Brian Stoffregen]

From 1 Maccabees 2 (boldface added):

29 At that time, many who sought righteousness and justice went to live in the desert. 30 They were there with their sons, their wives, and their livestock because troubles pressed heavily on them. 31 The king’s officers and the troops in Jerusalem, David’s City, learned that those who had rejected the king’s command had gone down to hiding places in the wilderness. 32 Many pursued and overtook them. The king’s military forces camped opposite them and prepared for battle against them on the Sabbath. 33 They said to them: “Enough of this! Come out and do what the king commands, and you will live.”

34 But the Israelites replied: “We won’t come out, and we won’t do what the king commands and so violate the Sabbath.” 35 So the enemy immediately attacked them. 36 Still they didn’t answer or throw a rock at them or even block up their hiding places. 37 They said, “Let’s all die in our innocence. Heaven and earth testify on our behalf that you are killing us unjustly.” 38 So the troops attacked them on the Sabbath. They died, with their wives and children and livestock, as many as one thousand people.

39 When Mattathias and his friends learned about this, they deeply mourned for the dead. 40 They said to each other: “If we all do as our people have done and refuse to fight against the Gentiles for our lives and our commandments, they will soon eliminate us from the earth.” 41 So they decided that day: “We will fight against anyone who comes to attack us on the Sabbath. Let’s not all die as our people did in their hiding places.”

This could lead to another principal: We avoid anything that might bring harm or death to our neighbors (even if it could mean disobeying a command from God).

[Coach-Rev]

4. That Innovation which introduces doubt and uncertainty into the Sacrament is eo ipso to be avoided.

I agree entirely with the sentiment, but I think I would broaden it out, in light especially of Paul's repeated instructions regarding weaker and stronger brothers. Something like:

4. Any innovation which unnecessarily challenges the faith of a fellow Christian is to be avoided.
For me, someone can still say in regard to the sacrament: "The Word is present and faith is present... these are what Luther says are necessary and therefore, what's the problem?" But Scripturally, just because I don't have a problem, I am not thereby justified in introducing a practice if it causes others doubt.

This is where I think churches have erred that have charged ahead with a practice that they had to know would stir controversy. They acted as though the strength of their faith was the only factor, when Paul makes it clear that this is not the case.

This is problematic for me in that I have a church full of members who believe, because of what they have been taught previously, (see this post for explanation) that abstaining from the Sacrament is the controversial thing and challenges the faith of other Christians.  I am sure that we can go back through history and see where every innovation has challenged the faith of other Christians.  Heck, it is what led Zwingli to remove all religious icons/artistry/ornamentation in churches and to whitewash them down to the bare walls.

I'm convinced as I've stated in the other thread that no matter what happens, I (as all of us) will be "damned if we do, and damned if we don't."  So where do we find the balance point?

[aletheist]

This is problematic for me in that I have a church full of members who believe, because of what they have been taught previously, (see this post for explanation) that abstaining from the Sacrament is the controversial thing and challenges the faith of other Christians.

No, please see my response in the other thread.

I am sure that we can go back through history and see where every innovation has challenged the faith of other Christians.  Heck, it is what led Zwingli to remove all religious icons/artistry/ornamentation in churches and to whitewash them down to the bare walls.

Zwingli was the one innovating in that case, and he was wrong to do so.

I'm convinced as I've stated in the other thread that no matter what happens, I (as all of us) will be "damned if we do, and damned if we don't."  So where do we find the balance point?

The standard Lutheran approach is to err on the side of tradition, rather than innovation; we only change a well-established practice if it would be sinful to maintain it.

Our preachers teach therefore, that without special and urgent cause, no change should be made in church usages, and that for the sake of peace and harmony we should observe the customs that are not in themselves sinful or oppressive.

There is obviously nothing "sinful or oppressive" about administering the Sacrament only in person to an assembled congregation, consistent with Christ's institution.

[Dave Benke]

The standard Lutheran approach is to err on the side of tradition, rather than innovation; we only change a well-established practice if it would be sinful to maintain it.

Stop me if I'm wrong here, Aletheist, but it seems very possible to me that any of those on the Roman Catholic side of the aisle, certainly back then, would beg to differ that the "standard Lutheran approach is to err on the side of tradition," possibly most pointedly when he accused the Magisterium of being stuck in tradition.  They may have accused him of circular argumentation in a central thesis, Sola Scriptura, since whatever the Word says is mitigated by a variety of human hearers who end up comparing what is said about the Word now against what has been said about the Word through the history of tradition, through the apostolic deposit.  But then, I'm a Lutheran, so I'm happy our traditions are better than anyone else's traditions were or ever could be.

Dave Benke

[aletheist]

Stop me if I'm wrong here, Aletheist, but it seems very possible to me that any of those on the Roman Catholic side of the aisle, certainly back then, would beg to differ that the "standard Lutheran approach is to err on the side of tradition," possibly most pointedly when he accused the Magisterium of being stuck in tradition.

The Lutheran Reformers sincerely believed that they were restoring tradition and rejecting innovation, such that it indeed would have been sinful for the church to continue doing what it had been doing at that time.

Since, then, with respect to these Articles of faith, there is nothing taught in our churches contrary to the holy Scripture, or the universal church, but merely some abuses have been corrected,--a part of which in the course of time, have crept in of themselves,--and others have been established by force,-- necessity requires us to state these, and to allege reasons why alterations in them were permitted, in order that your Imperial Majesty may know, that in this matter we have not acted in a manner unchristian or presumptuous, but that we have been urged to make alterations by the command of God, whose commands should justly be esteemed higher than all customs.

[Richard Johnson]

I'm convinced as I've stated in the other thread that no matter what happens, I (as all of us) will be "damned if we do, and damned if we don't."  So where do we find the balance point?

Jeff, I do not for a minute disregard the difficulty of the situation, and I am grateful that, as a retired guy, I don't have to make decisions about it right now. But the answer, for my money, is that we find the balance point by listening to the advice of our bishops (and I don't mean just the ecclesiastical leaders of one's particular church body, but of the church catholic). I personally, as a member of the Society of the Holy Trinity, would also listen attentively to the advice of the Senior and of others in the Society whose theological and liturgical acumen is greater than my own (which would be a large field!). That, after all, is one reason I subscribed to the Society: to have a faithful group of fellow pastors who could help me responsibly navigate difficult theological and pastoral matters.

[Rob Morris]

4. That Innovation which introduces doubt and uncertainty into the Sacrament is eo ipso to be avoided.

I agree entirely with the sentiment, but I think I would broaden it out, in light especially of Paul's repeated instructions regarding weaker and stronger brothers. Something like:

4. Any innovation which unnecessarily challenges the faith of a fellow Christian is to be avoided.
For me, someone can still say in regard to the sacrament: "The Word is present and faith is present... these are what Luther says are necessary and therefore, what's the problem?" But Scripturally, just because I don't have a problem, I am not thereby justified in introducing a practice if it causes others doubt.

This is where I think churches have erred that have charged ahead with a practice that they had to know would stir controversy. They acted as though the strength of their faith was the only factor, when Paul makes it clear that this is not the case.

This is problematic for me in that I have a church full of members who believe, because of what they have been taught previously, (see this post for explanation) that abstaining from the Sacrament is the controversial thing and challenges the faith of other Christians.  I am sure that we can go back through history and see where every innovation has challenged the faith of other Christians.  Heck, it is what led Zwingli to remove all religious icons/artistry/ornamentation in churches and to whitewash them down to the bare walls.

I'm convinced as I've stated in the other thread that no matter what happens, I (as all of us) will be "damned if we do, and damned if we don't."  So where do we find the balance point?

Two things, and I really do feel for your dilemma -
1) I was referring to the churches in the LCMS that have introduced this practice fully aware it would rile up others in the synod (it would take a serious portion of, let's charitably call it naivete to think otherwise)... I am not nearly as well-versed in the ELCA's positions and climate, so I didn't mean to speak of your decision personally. Just so you know.

2) If people feel they would be sinning against another by NOT communing, then I believe the prudent course is to find a way around the edges to offer it. Individual communion at church. Individual communion at home. Even civil disobedience if that is the direction that people are convinced is necessary... My point being, I don't know that I can envision a situation where individuals felt that refraining from communion would be sinful AND where live-streaming consecration is the only solution. Just my thoughts...

[Rob Morris]

I'll post this on both "Livestream" threads, but thanks everyone for the lively and, I think, very collegial discussion... I think these are the kinds of conversations that should, no... must be happening at this time. Yes, it is challenging/freewheeling/sometimes frustrating. But I, for one, really appreciate the exchanges.

So, thanks.
Rob

[peter_speckhard]

Sometimes the only thing we have is our personal witness, and people can make of it what they will. As a pastor, I would not attempt to consecrate the elements remotely via livestream, nor would I encourage my flock so to partake. As a parishioner, were I not the pastor but, say, retired or visiting somewhere, I would not partake of communion remotely via livestream. People can judge my faith as they will, but I would rather do without communion and subsist temporarily on the written/spoken Word (as many pioneers, explorers, and others who live far from any congregation have often done) than put my trust in something that is not sure.

People say err on the the side of the Gospel. Well, when it comes to the comfort of the sacraments, if you might be erring, you are not comforting. The question isn't whether live-streamed communion could be efficacious; unless it without question is efficacious, it is best to do without it until such time as there can be no doubt. It isn't the only way God works in our lives.

[Charles Austin]

I will say that with regard to his comment just upstream, I am in almost complete agreement with Peter. I would not livestream preside, nor would I partake of such a service. The body of Christ in the Eucharistic meal is connected to the real, physical community, and in my view that does not exist if communicants are not physically present.
   But the Word, the living Jesus is present, through the words of scripture and prayer even if Body and Blood in bread and wine are not.
   I also sniff a hint of clericalism in some of the enthusiasm for livestream, telecommunion. We may feel that people need us, that is, the ordained, to confect God’s “real presence” in their lives. We must therefore take extraordinary steps to make sure that we put  our special charism to work or people will lack what only we can give. As if the wholeness of the Christian’s relationship to Jesus is incomplete without us and what we do.
   I already sorely miss the Eucharist, the sacrament and the Christian community that gathers around the table. But I am not deprived of the Word which exists in that Eucharist.