To Commune or Not To Commune

   An opinion on gathering digitally humbly offered for consideration.

   Of all the confusing and confounding things we face over the course of this COVID-19 outbreak the question of what makes for an appropriate observation of worship is one that is has been quite a point of contention for the church.  Of course we can watch sermons and services online.  I myself teach a daily lesson online as well as a long Wednesday Lenten Study.  Like many other clergy I have taken to sitting down in the afternoon with my church directory calling my members to share time and prayer with them.  The real question is what about the sacraments?  I had to cancel at a few baptisms while we are off for the pandemic.  The appropriate way to conduct a baptism is in the midst of the assembled body of believers wherein the baptized are welcomed into the community of faith, by the community of faith.  But, if there was a medical emergency any believer could conduct an emergency baptism anywhere and any time.
    But, the burning question that has plagued us is what to do about the sacrament of communion?

The principal question that we have dealt with is how to administer communion to our congregants when we cannot physically gather in our church building to celebrate the sacrament.  Over our Lenten studies we have been discussing the Book of Concord as the assembly of Lutheran confessions that define our understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  So, we turn again to this most excellent collection of texts for some insight into what is and is not proper.  The Book of Concord, “Solid Declaration,” Article 7 states:

"But this “blessing” or the recitation of the Words of Institution of Christ by itself does not make a valid sacrament if the entire action of the Supper, as Christ administered it, is not observed (…). On the contrary, Christ’s command, “Do this,” must be observed without division or confusion. For it includes the entire action or administration of this sacrament: that in a Christian assembly bread and wine are taken, consecrated, distributed, received, eaten, and drunk, and that thereby the Lord’s death is proclaimed, as St. Paul presents the entire action of the breaking of the bread or its distribution and reception in 1 Corinthians 10[:16]."

Dr. Dirk G. Lange, writing on behalf of the Lutheran World Federation, points out that this document asserts that there are no magic bread and wine, nor are the clergy wizards who offer some incantation to make the bread and wine into body and blood.  But that it is the "entire action" of gathering as a community around the words and promise of Christ that allows for the consecration, distribution, and receiving of the body and blood of Christ.  To borrow a phrase, this is most certainly true.

    To this end Dr. Lange posits that an appropriate response to communion in a time of quarantine is to fast from the sacrament, rightly mourning our separation, but have hopes of what will come when we can again gather.  To whit, I must pose a challenge.  What constitutes "gathering" and what constitutes a "Christian assembly"?

• First: There may be no place in the life of a Christian for solo communion, or self communion.  Communion must be an act of the community.  This is granted. 
• Second:  The ideal for worship and the celebration of the sacrament is in-person gatherings of believers sharing their faith. 
• Third:  Does the quality of the gathering affect the quality of the sacrament?  If the sacrament is truly the body and blood of Christ, in, with, and under the bread and wine, then can any human deficiency affect its efficacy?  I would propose that suggesting so is a new form of Donatist Heresy.  If we are to say that in-person gathering is superior, and rightly we should, at what point do we dismiss other forms of gathering and on what conditions do we dismiss them?
• Fourth:  Do we dismiss electronic means of gathering or are they merely inferior ways of gathering?  If we dismiss them, why?  Is the physicality missing?  Well, the sight and sound is still there, and that is physical.  We lack proximity but does that mean that we lack interactivity?  My people have been highly interactive with one another digitally in our gathering online.  Is it that the lack of proximity disables the presence of community?  If so should we limit the seating in our sanctuaries to a size that ensures physical interaction?  Is the gathering in a mega-church invalid since I am never in physical proximity to other members, and indeed never actually encounter them?  Again, to suggest so may indeed be a new form of Donatist Heresy. 
• If then, gathering online is still gathering, just of a lesser quality then it is still gathering.  The quality of the gathering notwithstanding, the sacrament is still effective. One should strive for the most excellent form of gathering:  In person and interactive being best, other forms less so (We have a drive through communion on Sunday,...so we are all gathered together, but in our cars), and digital gathering the least so, but still it is gathering. 
• Therefore the blessing of the elements for the digitally gathered in their homes is just as much valid... as the quality of the clergy/gathering does not determine the quality of the sacrament.  

The question ultimately is the difference between invalid and inferior.  Is online gathering invalid because it fails to satisfy the strictures of the nature of gathering?  Is it physical? Is it interactive?  Is it communal?  Although the answer to all these questions is yes, it likewise should be noted that it is a "yes" that is inferior to the "yes" that could be applied to in-person.  Thus, I would consider it an inferior but not invalid state of gathering.  Since the quality of the administration does not affect the efficacy of the administration I would say that remote blessing of communion of is valid.

But, is it desirable?  Just because a thing is lawful does not make it desirable.  Again, this is a nuanced question that begs both theological and pastoral consideration.  The argument has been made that up until recently it was not uncommon for Lutherans to engage in communion quarterly.  While this is true, it does not make it good.  The Seventh Article of the Augsburg Confession seems to make it quite clear that,

For it is sufficient for the true unity of the Christian church that the Gospel be preached [with one accord] in conformity with a pure understanding of it and that the sacraments be administered in accordance with the divine Word.

Therefore, rightly assessed worship and communion are intrinsically connected to the point that the sacraments and word taken together are the symbol of the unity of the Christian church.  Avoidance of the sacrament is antithetical to the nature of the church.  Does this unity require the action of the church to be consistent in its methodology of distributing the sacrament?  Again the Seventh Article states:

It is not necessary for the true unity of the Christian church that ceremonies, instituted by men, should be observed uniformly in all places.

Theologically it seems that while remote blessing of the sacrament of communion is less than ideal, it is not without merit or value.

Pastorally there are generational issues to be addressed.  For those whose lives are threatened by the act of leaving their homes in a time of pandemic by virtue of a suppressed or compromised immune system, who are suffering extreme fear and anxiety in this time, the comfort of receiving the sacrament may be quite desirable.  For those of a younger generation...like it or not...they exist and interact communally on-line.  Though the standard that we set during a time of national crisis may not be the basis for understanding how to interact with a digital generation (one which we have more or less failed to reach), it is instructive on a few layers.  A knee jerk rejection of online presence cuts us off from engaging an entire generation where they are.  However, part of our duty to reach this generation may be to draw them from virtual presence to real presence.  Something we cannot accomplish from a position of disengagement.  Is engaging them digitally desirable?  Yes...Is engaging them online in a way that drives them further into social isolation and digital only interaction desirable?  No.

A balance must be struck between ministering in the midst of crisis.  Pastorally providing what we can and should, while not using our freedom as Christians to endanger the faith of others.

The remote blessing of the sacrament while inferior is not invalid.  In certain contexts it may be desirable, and yet others not.  We walk a delicate balance that cannot be accomplished by either dogmatic attachment to previous custom, nor trendy chasing of cultural, and ephemeral, norms.


   These thoughts are somewhat preliminary and I look forward to thinking deeper and longer about them.  For the moment I am willing to allow for digitally blessing the sacrament for in-home consumption.  But, there is yet much to consider as we move into the future.