Why We Won’t Have Online Communion

I’m glad Tyler mentions China, because when we consider the propriety of having the Lord’s Supper in house churches

I am not aware of anyone who would object to communion in a biblical house church. Certainly not me. That’s not the issue. The question at hand is whether a church can observe communion when they are not gathered as a church.

If someone thinks the biblical instructions concerning “when you come together” can be dispensed with, then I think they should tell us the biblical reason why.

Why isn’t a video meeting a real meeting? Why isn’t it “coming together”?

Are the people not real? Are they not really seeing and hearing each other? Are they not really interacting? If they do something at the same time is it not real simultaneity?

The only thing missing is physical proximity. It’s a big thing, but is it big enough to make the rest “not real”? Why? Why does it have that meaning and power?

I’m not sure the lack of physical proximity doesn’t de-realize all the other features of togetherness, but I don’t know why I should think it does either.

Why isn’t a video meeting a real meeting? Why isn’t it “coming together”? …

Some wise person said:

The only thing missing is physical proximity.

And as has been said, “It is a big thing.”

I would not say it isn’t a real meeting. I would say it isn’t coming together. I can’t imagine we need to argue for that since it is, be definition, not together. If it was together, we wouldn’t need Zoom or Facebook Live or some other software for it. We would be together. The reason we need these things is because we aren’t together.

Beyond physical proximity, I don’t see a whole lot of instructions beyond fencing off the Lord’s Supper from those in unrepentant sin and recognizing the very real presence of the Lord in what the church is doing. And regarding physical proximity, it also strikes me that if what I’ve read about church history is correct, there most likely would have been a lot of small house churches starting to meet when critical pastors and leaders were sent to the Circus Maximus. So I’m not altogether convinced that a lack of proximity for “the whole church” is really something that our forefathers in faith would have recognized as a real barrier to the Lord’s Supper.

But on the light side, if we posit that they always met at a church, and that the mode of the Lord’s Supper is very critical, then we would assume that it is also very critical that the elements be exactly the same as in the Upper Room. That means barley bread, not wheat, since Jesus was poor and barley was cheaper, and it was also 18 centuries before Thomas Welch was born and half a year after the grape harvest. Just sayin’. :^)

We’re not doing the Lord’s Supper online, but plan to do it when we return on 09 May. However, if this were extended into June, I would re-consider. We typically do it once per month.

” That’s not the issue. The question at hand is whether a church can observe communion when they are not gathered as a church. “

How many of you would say we need a church to have the Lord’s Supper? Why can’t I as a believer do this anytime I want to in my own home? Can a church that is between pastors observe this without a clergyman present?

How many of you would say we need a church to have the Lord’s Supper?

I would (obviously) because there is no scriptural indication otherwise. Where in the NT is the Lord’s Supper celebrated outside the assembly of the church?

Why can’t I as a believer do this anytime I want to in my own home?

Because you are not a church. You can’t celebrate your unity as a body with people that you are not unified with. You can have bread and juice or even wine and remember the Savior’s sacrifice for us. But that isn’t the Lord’s Supper.

Can a church that is between pastors observe this without a clergyman present?

Of course, because it is a church ordinance, not a pastor’s ordinance. Sacerdotalism is not biblical. Communion is communion because of who does it (the church in assembly) and what it means (remembering the Savior’s sacrifice for us and the unity it has brought to us.

And regarding physical proximity, it also strikes me that if what I’ve read about church history is correct, there most likely would have been a lot of small house churches starting to meet when critical pastors and leaders were sent to the Circus Maximus. So I’m not altogether convinced that a lack of proximity for “the whole church” is really something that our forefathers in faith would have recognized as a real barrier to the Lord’s Supper.

A house church is a whole church. Surely in times past and in many places today, a local body is a house church without a building of its own. That is hardly a drawback to being a church. The Bible never defines a church by owning a building or even a meeting place. It defines a church other ways. So should we.

if we posit that they always met at a church

I think what you mean is “met at a church building.” And no, that wasn’t always the case. But as above, having a church building is not a necessary component of being a church. This where language gets slippery because of imprecision. People use “church” when they mean “church building.” Thus, confusion occurs.

…we would assume that it is also very critical that the elements be exactly the same as in the Upper Room. That means barley bread, not wheat, since Jesus was poor and barley was cheaper, and it was also 18 centuries before Thomas Welch was born and half a year after the grape harvest.

I think it’s pretty important that the elements be what the NT says they are: Bread and Cup. The Bible doesn’t specify barley vs. wheat and doesn’t specify Welch’s vs. something else. Those are simply made up things.

Again, the issue is whether or not we are free to remake divinely ordained acts of corporate worship into things that reflect our own thinking or acceptability? Or are we bound to do it the way God has said to do it? Does God get to regulate worship in his church? Or do we?

[Larry]

I would not say it isn’t a real meeting. I would say it isn’t coming together. I can’t imagine we need to argue for that since it is, be definition, not together. If it was together, we wouldn’t need Zoom or Facebook Live or some other software for it. We would be together. The reason we need these things is because we aren’t together.

I’m still trying to work through for myself whether “together” can be virtual or not. Our church hasn’t done services with Zoom or anything live like that, though we have had messages over YouTube. However, for the past couple weeks, my family (My parents, all their kids and spouses and nearly all grandchildren) have done a weekly Zoom call. There is certainly some sense in which we’re not together (no hugs or other physical contact, no shared meals, or things like that), but there’s no doubt I’m talking with all of them almost exactly as if we were in the same room together at a family gathering. I’m not sure which way I fall on this, but it is something to think about.

As for technology being necessary, you could also then argue that if the room is large enough that a microphone and sound system are necessary to hear those speaking or leading the worship service, then we’re not really together either. On any given Sunday, I have had less interaction with the pastors in a direct way in large churches I have attended than I might over a Zoom meeting. In what sense, then, are we really “together?” I don’t think the need for technology can itself be the defining factor.

As to communion in the early church, mentioned by me and at least one other, how big a subset of the church members would you have to have to have communion properly? It was clear that the early church did some of their functions from house to house. Would that require more than just the family or extended family living there? I think it’s fairly clear that the entire 5000 or do didn’t meet together in one place. Again, I’m not that comfortable with the idea of communion with just my family, but given what we see in scripture, how many would we have to have to be biblical?

Sorry, I just can’t go there as a rule, because for starters, Acts records a severe persecution of the church causing its scattering from Jerusalem and Judea. It would be very unlikely for the overall structure—elders, deacons, etc..—to “cleanly” survive that kind of scattering. You also have the issue that the church had not (Acts 2) officially constituted at the first Lord’s Supper, and for that matter, the migration from apostles to deacons and elders wouldn’t really occur for a number of years after Acts 2. But they celebrated the Lord’s Supper. And in like manner, Christ doesn’t say “do this only when you have all the things in place to be a properly constituted church”, but rather simply says “do this in remembrance of me.” When Paul sends Timothy to Ephesus, moreover, he did so in order to put elders into place—the churches, again, would not be considered “properly constituted” today, I’d dare suggest. Various churches in the NT did not have elders, deacons, and the like in place, and Christ would have known that, but still He told the apostles “do this in remembrance of me”.

Really, while I do think it’s important to aim for a sound, coherent ecclesiastical structure, there are a number hints in Scripture (another example being 1 Cor. 14) that the overall effect at these churches was in some ways a potluck—some people brought songs, some brought prophecies, some brought teaching, etc.. I don’t know that we “need” to go quite back to there, but it’s a reality worth considering.

Who said anything about a “fully constituted church”? And what does that even mean?

I do think it’s important to aim for a sound, coherent ecclesiastical structure

I would prefer biblical ecclesiastical structure, which would be sound, but I think it is a more precise way of putting it.

The church in Acts is in formation and transition. Of course there was persecution and time when the elders were probably separated from the body. Of course there were large numbers who probably couldn’t gather all in the same place. They didn’t have church buildings dedicated to church gatherings. There were times they were without deacons and probably elders. But why do we assume that that has bearing on this question?

As for the churches at Ephesus without elders, the description is typically not “not fully constituted”; it is “out of order.” Typically the categories are orderly church, disorderly church, or not a church at all.

Communion does not require elders or deacons. That is sacerdotalism where an ordinance is made effective because it is administered by a priest or a pastor. The ordinances belong to the churches, not the pastors or the elders. As for a “potluck,” modern faithful churches are a potluck as different people serve the body with their differing gifts. I think we absolutely should “go back there.” Too many people in the church body are standing around twiddling their thumbs rather than serving with their gifts. I am also in favor of potlucks in other ways.

Again, I think discussions like this are revealing a weak ecclesiology. We simply don’t know the biblical and historic practice of faithful churches. We are not accustomed, as a whole, to dealing with Scripture. We import all sorts of things, probably without realization. And this discussion reveals it: Where in Scripture do we see an unassembled body partaking in communion? The answer is “nowhere.” So any argument that we worship through communion without assembling is imported into Scripture. It does not arise from Scripture.

All this is a straw man and a red herring. It distracts from the real issue which is this: Are we free to remake divinely ordained acts of corporate worship into things that reflect our own thinking or acceptability? Or are we bound to do it the way God has said to do it? Does God get to regulate worship in his church? Or do we?

The way we answer that question will likely determine where we come down on this issue.

Dave,

There is certainly some sense in which we’re not together (no hugs or other physical contact, no shared meals, or things like that), but there’s no doubt I’m talking with all of them almost exactly as if we were in the same room together at a family gathering.

I imagine you feel a sense of limitation and recognize that it is not the same for some of the very reasons you mention. It’s not that it’s not good or helpful. It’s that it isn’t the same as being together.

As for technology being necessary,

My argu,ent has nothing to do with technology, though I would point out that even in a large room, you are “really together.” in fact, you are so much together that technology is needed to make sure everyone that is together can hear.

As to communion in the early church, mentioned by me and at least one other, how big a subset of the church members would you have to have to have communion properly?

I think the focus on numbers or size is a straw man. That is not the issue. The issue is, “Is this the church?” vs. “Is this part of the church?” A church of 10 is a church just like a church of 10,000. Both can rightly celebrate communion. It’s the same reason I wouldn’t serve communion at school, camp, or youth group, a wedding, etc. It is an act of the gathered assembly—when you come together.

…what are the criteria as you see them, Larry?

Really, what you’re doing is arguing from silence, which is a generally dangerous and usually logically invalid way of addressing a point, especially the Lord’s Supper. You’ve got not very many examples of it in Scripture—the Last Supper and Paul’s rebuke to the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 11:20 come to mind—but for developing a theology of the Lord’s Supper, that’s awfully thin in terms of evidence, and awfully full in terms of the assumptions you’re making.

You wrote:

Again, I think discussions like this are revealing a weak ecclesiology. We simply don’t know the biblical and historic practice of faithful churches. We are not accustomed, as a whole, to dealing with Scripture. We import all sorts of things, probably without realization.

It would be helpful if you didn’t impugn everyone who disagrees with you as being weak in ecclesiology!

You wrote:

And this discussion reveals it: Where in Scripture do we see an unassembled body partaking in communion? The answer is “nowhere.” So any argument that we worship through communion without assembling is imported into Scripture. It does not arise from Scripture.

By your logic, I can say the following:

Where in Scripture do we see a pastor using a microphone? The answer is “nowhere.” So any argument that a pastor use a microphone is imported into Scripture. It does not arise from Scripture.

Our regional GARBC association is fairly split on the issue. These are guys with graduate training who are convictional Baptists. Some pastors are doing it, others are not. Our church is not.

and you take that seriously, what about multiple services? You are not all gathered. In fact, on purpose you have not all gathered.

And what about multi-site churches. You NEVER gather together…

And what about communion for shut-ins?