This has become a sprawling debate. I have tried to capture
the major arguments here without naming lots of names. Of course no-one is
making all these arguments; I’ve just found it helpful to spread out the pieces
and try and organise them a little…
By way of a headline, I don’t think we can celebrate the
Lord’s Supper until we physically gather again as God’s people. But I want to
acknowledge the breadth and quality of many arguments for a different
conclusion. There are some biblical arguments that need addressing and there are
very tricky questions around what it means to be “present” online. Could it not
be said that the church has gathered in a Zoom chat room?
Let’s begin with some basic convictions about the Lord’s
Supper, widely recognised:
1. The Lord’s Supper is the
sign of a sacrifice for sins offered once for all. The loss of the Lord’s
Supper would be much, much worse if we believed it atones for sins.
2. The Lord’s Supper is a sign
for the new covenant community.
a.
It signifies the unity of
God’s people. There is one loaf, one body, one cup. Indeed, it constitutes us
as one. We who are many are one “because there is one loaf.” (1 Cor 10:17)
b.
It is to be celebrated as
the gathered church. Paul’s instructions on the Lord’s Supper are given along
with other aspects of corporate worship under the category of things to do “when
you come together” (1 Cor 11:18, 20, 14:23, 26).
c.
It is closely related to
church discipline. To excommunicate someone is to ex-communion them, to deny
them the right to eat at the family table. 1 Corinthians 5-6 speaks of those
who should be excluded from table fellowship because of their sinful conduct as
an act of discipline.[1]
Likewise Matt 18:17 speaks of ending fellowship as the climax of a process of
discipline.
This
responsibility to “judge those inside” the church falls to the whole church
community in 1 Cor 5:12-13 and the unrepentant sinner’s case is brought before
the whole church in Matt 18:17. That said, there is a clear need for mature
believers to be engaged in the process (Gal 6:1) and it is the responsibility of
leaders in particular to refute error, rebuke, correct, and restore, as the
Pastoral Epistles demonstrate.
Protestant churches have developed a number of ways of
administering the Lord’s Supper which will raise some more specific issues,
beyond the need to observe the basic contours on the Lord’s Supper. In some
traditions, it is only the ordained ministers of the gospel or elders of the
church who may preside. In others, the bread and wine must be consecrated by an
ordained minister and any surplus reverently consumed.[2]
To the extent that these are felt to be important, they will feed into our
decision about what is permissible or advisable in this season.
But, to return to those broader convictions about the Lord’s
Supper, the basic question emerges clearly enough: if the church can’t meet
together, then how can it celebrate the Lord’s Supper?
The next few posts looks at a number of recent arguments arguing it can...
[1] In the words of the Westminster
Larger Catechism Question 173: “May any who profess his faith, and desire to
come to the Lord’s Supper, be kept from it?” Answer: “Such as are found to be
ignorant or scandalous, notwithstanding their profession of the faith, and
desire to come to the Lord’s Supper, may and ought to be kept from that
sacrament, by the power which Christ hath left in his church, until they
receive instruction and manifest their reformation.
[2] What is meant by consecration varies; it can mean that
bread and wine are accompanied by words which proclaim their significance
(thereby keeping word and sacrament together). See Calvin Institutes
4.17.39 on this); it can also include the prayer that the Spirit would enable
the people to feed in Christ in the Supper.