The turbulent times we face, brought about by the present, raise many questions in the Church. Many of them had not been answered before. No one in our generation has pastored a church in the midst of a pandemic of this level where assembly has been temporarily banned in so many countries.
One of the main questions being discussed is about the sacrament and the freedom a church may or may not have to practice this ordinance in unusual ways during this time. The main argument against it is that the church should only celebrate the Lord’s Supper in the assembly. Since physical assembly is prohibited, then there should be no sacrament.
However, in our local church we have concluded, according to the Scriptures, that we are free to take the Lord’s Supper digitally under certain conditions. Since I am fully convinced by the Word, I would like to explain our conviction in this regard and how we insist on practicing the Lord’s Supper in a very specific way.
The Lord’s Supper is not a private act
As an introductory statement, it is important to emphasize that the Lord’s Supper is not an act of private piety. From its beginnings, having Easter as a shadow and the biblical teaching about it, we see that the Lord’s Supper is a family dinner. We affirm this in our church every time we celebrate it.
Paul’s main argument in 1 Corinthians 10-11 assumes that this meal will be something shared by the church, and not an individual act. In 1 Corinthians 10:17, Paul says: “Since the bread is one, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of that same bread.” He follows his argument by pointing out the way to take the Lord’s Supper in verse 18: “Well, first of all, I hear that when you come together as a church…”. At the same time, he ends in verse 33 by saying, “Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another…”.
The norm in the Scriptures is that the Lord’s Supper should be celebrated by the community of believers. The reason is that this dinner is a sign that we are the covenant people. The people redeemed and rescued by Christ, through the faithful and true love of God, celebrate this dinner as a testimony of their pactual identity. Therefore, there is no point in taking the sacrament privately.
Most people who criticize churches that take the sacrament by virtual means assume that (1) they are doing it in a live broadcast and everyone is alone in their house without being able to “be together” and/or that (2 ) the church does not take into account those members who cannot connect, and therefore, have not waited for each other, as Paul warns in 1 Corinthians 11:33.
Clearly, we must avoid taking the sacrament privately. At the same time, we cannot exclude church members for technological reasons. So the central question in taking the Lord’s Supper online is not: Can I take it privately at home?otherwise What does it mean to meet or congregate? A second question that arises is: Is there any way that we can obey what the Scriptures demand, without all physically being in the same building?
We have met by video call on Sundays to celebrate the Holy Dinner together. We have a large Zoom account, which allows us up to 500 connections. Plus, we’ve done our best to include our members who don’t have access, so we can all stay connected. Thus we make sure that this is not a private act, but a corporate act, which does not exclude anyone because the entire membership of our church has the necessary knowledge and access.
The main question that this has generated for us as pastors is: Would the New Testament authors affirm that this is an assembly in the midst of the situation we are experiencing? Is this a Reform Church meeting?
I think so and I will explain why below.
1. We recognize that it is not ideal
First of all, none of us advocates that this is ideal. In fact, I would also argue that with the ability to meet physically, this would indeed be a practice that would detract from the importance of the local church. There is an ideal and, at the same time, the church has to make decisions based on the urgency or peculiarity of the situation.
The same Protestant confessions of faith understand this principle. Both the London Second Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession say:
“… there are some circumstances regarding the worship of God and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which must be determined according to the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general norms of the Word , which must always be kept.”
In this sense, we consider that we have kept the general norms of the Word and that we have had to determine the practice of this ordinance in accordance with the light of the nature of current events and Christian prudence for this time.
When human society returns to regularity, then surely we will return to the ideal practice of the sacrament ordinance. Are we meeting on video call? Of course! Is it ideal to meet like this? Of course not!
2. We insist on the example of the early church
However, while we do not consider it ideal, we also do not believe that the decentralization of the church when it comes to taking the sacrament is unscriptural. The harsh reality is that there is confusion about what Acts 2:46 explains. This is, in my view, where consistency has been lacking in our exegesis of the Lord’s Supper.
Acts 2:46 says: “Day after day they continued with one accord in the temple and breaking bread in the homes, they ate together with gladness and singleness of heart.” Many have appealed that the supper mentioned here is not the Lord’s Supper, but was simply a meal. However, they then argue based on Acts 20:7 (“On the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread…”) that supper should be when the assembly is assembled, not realizing that the phrase used in Acts 20:7 it is the same used in Acts 2:46. Why not assume Lucas has the same thing in mind by using the same phrase? This would be the easiest reading.
In this sense, there are two options: (1) What is narrated in Acts 2 is an example of the church taking Holy Communion in a decentralized way (that is, in expressions of the local church in homes, and not necessarily with the entire assembly). present in the same place); or (2) the breaking of bread of Acts 20 is not the Lord’s Supper and is just a normal meal. There are not enough textual clues to discern this. Therefore, the interpretation of assuming that the Lord’s Supper is spoken of in one passage and not in the other is a capricious exegesis.
Therefore, it can be assumed that the early church understood their community identity not in a face-to-face way, so that everyone had to be in the same place to celebrate what united them, but rather that they understood their community identity spiritually. That is, the link is the Spirit, not the place or the presence of all.
Furthermore, some argue that Acts 2:46 does not speak of the Lord’s Supper, but just a normal meal. But this is not a true argument because both things can be true. The believers could have eaten and also celebrated the Lord’s Supper. This seems to be the case in 1 Corinthians 11. Furthermore, the very night that Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper, it was at a dinner with “regular food.”
3. We emphasize being together spiritually
Not being able to be physically together to take the Lord’s Supper raises a series of questions that make me wonder if there really is a church that fully reflects the ideal that is promoted.
If ideally the entire membership should be together for the sacrament, then what happens if someone is missing? Shouldn’t we take the sacrament if all the members are not there? What do we do with members who cannot leave their homes due to illness? They just don’t take the sacrament? Furthermore, what do we do with churches that have multiple services? Isn’t taking the sacrament with half the church less than ideal?
I am sure that all these questions have answers. My point is not that we don’t have them, but that they will vary in our churches precisely because we all try to be faithful to God’s Word in particular situations, within a certain time and context. This crisis, a global pandemic, is unprecedented and we want to honor what the Word of God demands of us in the midst of this situation.
It is here where we understand that what is important when taking the Holy Supper is not primarily the physical presence of all the members, but the spiritual and pactual awareness of what it means to be together and united in the same feeling, under the head that is Christ. Being together as a church consists of plus to be in the same place to see each other, talk to each other, listen to each other, and hug each other. It can include all these very valuable things, but it is especially about knowing that those of us who are together have been adopted and redeemed adopted by the body and blood of Christ. This, I believe, can be achieved through a video call. The main things that unite us are still valid in that non-ideal space.
In fact, Paul twice makes reference to this spiritual presence (1 Cor. 5:3, and Col. 2:5). He longs to be with the church, but he doesn’t give up saying, “Well, no way, until we’re together…”, instead he emphasizes that although he is absent in body, he is still present in spirit. Does this mean that his spirit is floating with the church in Colosse or in Corinth? No way! What it does imply is that being present with the church goes beyond being in the same locality.
A bigger problem?
Honestly, the problem in the current debate seems to be that we have two compromises in tension. The first commitment is to keep everything that the Scriptures command us to do regarding the order and structure of our churches. The second commitment is to faithfully celebrate the ordinance established by our Lord Jesus. Simply to say that we cannot celebrate the sacrament and that we must wait during this time is to disparage this second commitment.
Ironically, many churches that use Acts 20:7 to advocate that the church should always be physically together to celebrate the meal, ignore the implication that the church took the sacrament “on the first day of the week, when they were assembled…”. I mean, every week. This brings us to the difficult discussion of how regularly we should partake of the sacrament. At least, within the Reformed tradition, we have understood that this dinner is more than just a memory. It is a means of grace. This belief is what has led us to practice the Lord’s Supper more frequently.
Also, what’s less ideal between taking the sacrament virtually and not taking it at all? Could it be that we are denying him bread and…