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

[GalRevRedux]

Yesterday I received an email from the congregation to which I belong. The pastor outlined plans for Holy Week and Easter.

He then explained that we would be participating in a virtual communion on Maundy Thursday and Easter Sunday. He explained how it would work, and even included a recipe for communion bread so we could all participate in this process.

I was devastated. The way he partly put the burden of this decision onto the church council disturbed me. But the whole concept of this upset me far more than I had anticipated. Of course I am sure it will be popular in our congregation. But it just feels so forced, precious and inappropriate to me that I couldn't  imagine my pastor had said "okay."

Paul Hinlicky expanded his initial FB post on this subject into a most meaningful article which I have found very helpful.  I link it here.
http://mcsletstalk.org/communion-and-community/why-virtual-communion-is-not-nearly-radical-enough/?fbclid=IwAR3j6I1dfjYYghEij8PzDCHlr9DzQJ_QHJ11o-ib5W8j09jKKdcQiHV12j8

Having promised at ordination to see to the oversight of the administration of the sacrament in good order, this just rattles my cage. I have not yet discussed this with my pastor - I will, I must.

I grieve.

Donna

[Steven W Bohler]

By Rev. David Jay Webber: http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/FamilyCommunionInternetCommunion.pdf

[Dan Fienen]

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.

I find this broad form of a fourth principle problematic. Giving offense unnecessarily is to be avoided, but so is taking offense unnecessarily. We need to be very clear and careful about just what we mean when we talk of challenging the faith of a fellow believer.


Paul in 1 Corinthians and Romans spoke of the need to not offend the weaker brother, especially in the matter eating meat that was sacrificed, or may have been sacrificed, to an idol. A very important point that needs to be understood is that Paul was not talking about upsetting someone. Some had scruples about eating meat that may have at some point have been involved in a pagan sacrifice. Others, realizing that the idols were really nothing, saw no problem. Thus if those who had no such scruples were seen eating meat that may have be sacrificed, those with scruples would get upset. Paul's message to those with scruples was that they should get over themselves and stop being judgmental.


The problem Paul was concerned about was the newer, weaker Christians who had just converted from paganism. The concern was that those who had no scruples about meat could lead these weaker Christians into sin. This could happen in a couple of ways. One would be since the association of eating the meat with idol worship was still strong with them they could feel that to eat the meat involved them in pagan worship and then following the example of the strong Christians sin against their conscience. The other danger was that by following the example of the strong Christians they could begin to think it was OK to participate in the pagan rites that involved eating sacrificial meat and really commit idolatry and sin.


The one with scruples should not always determine what is correct or not.

[Donald_Kirchner]

By Rev. David Jay Webber: http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/FamilyCommunionInternetCommunion.pdf

Wow, Jay put a lot of work into this balanced article! Thanks for sharing this, Steve.

[peter_speckhard]

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.

I find this broad form of a fourth principle problematic. Giving offense unnecessarily is to be avoided, but so is taking offense unnecessarily. We need to be very clear and careful about just what we mean when we talk of challenging the faith of a fellow believer.


Paul in 1 Corinthians and Romans spoke of the need to not offend the weaker brother, especially in the matter eating meat that was sacrificed, or may have been sacrificed, to an idol. A very important point that needs to be understood is that Paul was not talking about upsetting someone. Some had scruples about eating meat that may have at some point have been involved in a pagan sacrifice. Others, realizing that the idols were really nothing, saw no problem. Thus if those who had no such scruples were seen eating meat that may have be sacrificed, those with scruples would get upset. Paul's message to those with scruples was that they should get over themselves and stop being judgmental.


The problem Paul was concerned about was the newer, weaker Christians who had just converted from paganism. The concern was that those who had no scruples about meat could lead these weaker Christians into sin. This could happen in a couple of ways. One would be since the association of eating the meat with idol worship was still strong with them they could feel that to eat the meat involved them in pagan worship and then following the example of the strong Christians sin against their conscience. The other danger was that by following the example of the strong Christians they could begin to think it was OK to participate in the pagan rites that involved eating sacrificial meat and really commit idolatry and sin.


The one with scruples should not always determine what is correct or not.

Not sure that applies in this case. When the topic is about remote, live-stream communion, the barriers are broken down in terms of who is preaching and teaching whom. If Pastor X is offering communion via live-stream, Pastor Y, who disagrees with that practice, instantly becomes either a) the guy who won't give his congregation communion, or b) the one declaring that Pastor Y shouldn't be. He can't be c) the guy who somehow coherently says that a perfectly valid communion service via live-stream may be a fine gift for Pastor X's congregation but not for his own congregation, which is apparently what Pastor X thinks is a plausible solution.

Pastor X has put Pastor in this position. To declare live-stream communion valid for your congregation is to declare is valid for all congregations.

As Donna said in the post prior, it has the potential to turn Holy Week celebrations into a cause for dissension and grief.

As an aside, when they gave a recipe for bread so that everyone could participate in the process, did they include instructions for what to do with the rest of the unknown number of consecrated loaves after the service?   

[Dave Benke]

By Rev. David Jay Webber: http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/FamilyCommunionInternetCommunion.pdf

Thanks for this.  I don't know this pastor, who writes from Phoenix, AZ - from his references it sounds like he's LCMS.  I have found Paul Hinlicky's article of the most help thus far.  President Harrison's post was great in my opinion because he places this issue in the context of overall pastoral and parish ministry and response.  From a NYC perspective, the level of pain and anxiety among the general population and among the faithful is completely off the chart.  We are all vulnerable.  No one is invincible.  We are all at high risk.  We are apart.  The pastoral vocation is so important and at the same time, due to distancing, so difficult these days - and yet we're surrounded by the grace of God at every step.

Dave Benke

[Steven W Bohler]

By Rev. David Jay Webber: http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/FamilyCommunionInternetCommunion.pdf

Thanks for this.  I don't know this pastor, who writes from Phoenix, AZ - from his references it sounds like he's LCMS.  I have found Paul Hinlicky's article of the most help thus far.  President Harrison's post was great in my opinion because he places this issue in the context of overall pastoral and parish ministry and response.  From a NYC perspective, the level of pain and anxiety among the general population and among the faithful is completely off the chart.  We are all vulnerable.  No one is invincible.  We are all at high risk.  We are apart.  The pastoral vocation is so important and at the same time, due to distancing, so difficult these days - and yet we're surrounded by the grace of God at every step.

Dave Benke

From his church's webpage:

THE REV. DAVID JAY WEBBER is a native northeasterner, of English (Mayflower), Dutch, Frisian, Swedish, Danish, German (Palatine), Swiss (German), French, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Scotch-Irish, Belgian, Italian, and Slovak ancestry. He was baptized and confirmed at Christ Evangelical Lutheran Church in Germantown, New York (LCA, now ELCA). After receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree in history in 1984 from The King's College in Briarcliff Manor, New York, he studied for the Ministry and received his Master of Divinity degree in 1988 at Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana (LCMS). In 2015 he received the degree of Master of Sacred Theology from the Institute of Lutheran Theology in Brookings, South Dakota.

In 1988 he was ordained as a Pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Synod, of which he has been a member ever since. He serves on the ELS Doctrine Committee, and is the Visitor for the ELS Southwest Circuit. He served as Pastor of Scriptural Evangelical Lutheran Church in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, from 1988 to 1990; as Pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church in Brewster, Massachusetts, from 1990 to 1997; and as Rector and Professor of Theology at Saint Sophia Ukrainian Lutheran Theological Seminary in Ternopil', Ukraine, from 1997 to 2005 (under the auspices of the Thoughts of Faith mission society). He has been the Pastor of Redeemer Lutheran Church in Scottsdale, Arizona, since 2005.

[Dan Fienen]

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.

I find this broad form of a fourth principle problematic. Giving offense unnecessarily is to be avoided, but so is taking offense unnecessarily. We need to be very clear and careful about just what we mean when we talk of challenging the faith of a fellow believer.


Paul in 1 Corinthians and Romans spoke of the need to not offend the weaker brother, especially in the matter eating meat that was sacrificed, or may have been sacrificed, to an idol. A very important point that needs to be understood is that Paul was not talking about upsetting someone. Some had scruples about eating meat that may have at some point have been involved in a pagan sacrifice. Others, realizing that the idols were really nothing, saw no problem. Thus if those who had no such scruples were seen eating meat that may have be sacrificed, those with scruples would get upset. Paul's message to those with scruples was that they should get over themselves and stop being judgmental.


The problem Paul was concerned about was the newer, weaker Christians who had just converted from paganism. The concern was that those who had no scruples about meat could lead these weaker Christians into sin. This could happen in a couple of ways. One would be since the association of eating the meat with idol worship was still strong with them they could feel that to eat the meat involved them in pagan worship and then following the example of the strong Christians sin against their conscience. The other danger was that by following the example of the strong Christians they could begin to think it was OK to participate in the pagan rites that involved eating sacrificial meat and really commit idolatry and sin.


The one with scruples should not always determine what is correct or not.

Not sure that applies in this case. When the topic is about remote, live-stream communion, the barriers are broken down in terms of who is preaching and teaching whom. If Pastor X is offering communion via live-stream, Pastor Y, who disagrees with that practice, instantly becomes either a) the guy who won't give his congregation communion, or b) the one declaring that Pastor Y shouldn't be. He can't be c) the guy who somehow coherently says that a perfectly valid communion service via live-stream may be a fine gift for Pastor X's congregation but not for his own congregation, which is apparently what Pastor X thinks is a plausible solution.

Pastor X has put Pastor in this position. To declare live-stream communion valid for your congregation is to declare is valid for all congregations.

As Donna said in the post prior, it has the potential to turn Holy Week celebrations into a cause for dissension and grief.

As an aside, when they gave a recipe for bread so that everyone could participate in the process, did they include instructions for what to do with the rest of the unknown number of consecrated loaves after the service?

It may not apply to this case, although reference was made to weaker and stronger brothers which does refer back to this. I'm wary of establishing as a broad principle 4. Any innovation which unnecessarily challenges the faith of a fellow Christian is to be avoided. We need to be very careful what counts as an unnecessary challenge. Let us also not forget Romans 14:4 (ESV) "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand." Judgment is at times necessary, but we are at times too quick to judge.

[pastorg1@aol.com]

When Saint Paul writes of "the" bread,  and "the" cup, I think that he is noting that we Christians are one body in Christ as we reflect and pray on the power of the Sacrament.

When Jesus uses "this" in declaring a specific piece of bread and a specific cup of wine as his body and blood, Jesus is confronting us with a personal, sensory, spiritual moment that carries to us our forgiveness and salvation.

In other words: Showing up counts. God shows up, arrives in the specific unity of Word and elements in a specific place.

It is what the Incarnation is all about and how God works through means.

I want to show up for this sacramental event.

So- for me, the virtual communion idea is strong on being nice and weak on theology- not always a bad thing. But in this case holds a danger of being confusing and dividing the church's ancient practice into a stay-at-home mysticism, i.e., something that begins in "myst" is centered on "I" and ends in "cism."

What I would do is reassure my flock through various media that we are one body while also being present on Sunday for individuals to approach the altar, receive the Host and depart, staying safely apart from one another in the nave, yet one in the Body.

Peter (Pinchas Lapide) Garrison

[peter_speckhard]

For those doing live-streaming communion, what is the exit strategy? In other words, once the pandemic ends, will this be the new normal way to offer communion to shut-ins or those who for whatever reason choose to tune in to the service remotely? Or will the practice be discontinued? If it is discontinued, what justification will be given to those who prefer to continue receiving communion that way?

If we are certain it "works" to offer communion that way, why not at least offer it that way all the time? And if we aren't certain, why do it at all?

[GalRevRedux]

As Donna said in the post prior, it has the potential to turn Holy Week celebrations into a cause for dissension and grief.

As an aside, when they gave a recipe for bread so that everyone could participate in the process, did they include instructions for what to do with the rest of the unknown number of consecrated loaves after the service.?

No, no instructions. I guess we are supposed to keep peanut butter handy for post worship fellowship. 

[Steven Tibbetts]

It may not apply to this case, although reference was made to weaker and stronger brothers which does refer back to this. I'm wary of establishing as a broad principle 4. Any innovation which unnecessarily challenges the faith of a fellow Christian is to be avoided. We need to be very careful what counts as an unnecessary challenge. Let us also not forget Romans 14:4 (ESV) "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand." Judgment is at times necessary, but we are at times too quick to judge.

Perhaps, then, rather than "a fellow Christian," how about "others within our own church body." 

Or perhaps it's not so much challenging the faith, as it is departing from what "we" have agreed to and practiced together.

WRT "virtual communion," where Joe Parishioner gathers with his household with some bread and "fruit of the vine" and they watch a minister speak the words of instituion via live stream (or even on recording) and then proceeds to "commune" with the household, it is a different thing if this is being done:

- by an American Baptist,
- by a United Methodist,
- by an Episcopalian/Anglican,
- by another Lutheran,
- by another Lutheran with whom we have, officially or unofficially, mutual Altar fellowship,
- by another Lutheran in the same Synod.

So, as an ELCA pastor formed in a Muhlenberg tradition,
- I'm not terribly bothered by the Baptist; even communion in his church is "virtual."

- Similarly with the Methodist, for even with our agreement, what they actually teach by their faith and practice isn't what I recognize as the Holy Eucharist.

- The Episcopalian/Anglican is more bothersome, since we've got a couple generations of actually teaching and practicing (at least in the ELCA and ECUSA, present and former) very, very closely (granted, that could depend upon how Evangelical or Calvinist they regard the sacrament).

- Another Lutheran, which is quite serious because I don't know how they fit it with Lutheran teaching and the practices of one Lutheran does affect the perception of other Lutherans, even when we we aren't fully accepting of each other in fellowship (say WELS-ELCA)

- another Lutheran with whom we have some sort of mutual recognition, official (say the ELCIC or other LWF churches) or unofficial (in my case, for instance, with NALC colleagues, with whom we share the same prinicples of fellowship, or perhaps even some "salt water district"-ish Missourians) because we have shared in the Eucharist together and we have a bond of fellowship so it strikes at my heart, but we aren't under the same discipline.

- another Lutheran in my same synod, because it's a betrayal of the very essence of who we are -- or at least what we were before we started to treat "the synod" as merely advisory and became mini-Popes of our congregations, albeit often subject to the desires of the congregation's powers-that-be. 

Kyrie eleison, Steven+

[Steven Tibbetts]

As an aside, when they gave a recipe for bread so that everyone could participate in the process, did they include instructions for what to do with the rest of the unknown number of consecrated loaves after the service?

No big deal, Peter.  Even in a regular Sunday communion, as soon as everyone's who want to commune has and/or the service is over, Jesus has left the building, 'er, the bread. 

Christe eleison, Steven+

[jtpless]

On "internet" communion: https://logia.org/logia-online/the-impossibility-of-online-administration-of-the-lords-supper2020?fbclid=IwAR0RjLgUBr253lmlA9di8Fzdi_zdCQuqwDLFN0yqVts1XCBTyV8y5PpEK90

[Richard Johnson]

- Similarly with the Methodist, for even with our agreement, what they actually teach by their faith and practice isn't what I recognize as the Holy Eucharist.

My sister reported today that they found on their porch a small bag from their Methodist church containing a palm branch, a hymnal, a cup of juice and a container of goldfish crackers, so that they could "have communion" tomorrow on Palm Sunday. (Well, it is the first Sunday of the month . . . )