Read on Twitter
Been doing a fair bit of reading and thinking about the 'online communion' debate. At the risk of being lynched, some reflections:
1. Genuine believers/churches are making different calls on this issue, but both for the same reason: trying to honour Jesus and the Lord’s Supper.
1. Genuine believers/churches are making different calls on this issue, but both for the same reason: trying to honour Jesus and the Lord’s Supper.
2. Some very well written articles arguing No have emerged early. These have quickly persuaded many to join the No camp - no questions asked, as it were!
3. These articles are well written, make many excellent points, and seem initially impossible to argue against.
They may also be arguing correctly.
They may also be arguing correctly.
4. Theological 'herd dynamics' are interesting too. When a number of big hitters in one's theological camp go a certain way, it seems impossible to go in another direction.
5. Whether you agree with it or not, I don't think that the Yes case has been made as articulately as it could have been. Not online anyway.
6. Many of the No articles read much like off the shelf articles which argued against 'online church.' But the churches who are choosing to do this are largely committed local churches, trying to see if there is some way to fulfil the Lord’s Supper in an extraordinary context.
7. I don't think many of the No articles have sufficiently engaged with the extraordinary nature of the scenario we are in. This situation is not parallel to anything we see in the NT. If there is a 1 Corinthians 17, I'd love to read it.
8. The strong distinction being made between singing/praying/ preaching vs communion is not entirely convincing to some of us. All these elements ideally demand physical presence. Eg. Even preaching has a 'dialogical' element - where the preacher sees the people he's speaking to.
9. Yet we believe the Holy Spirit is capable of superceding these limitations. The Spirit helps us in our weakness.
10. Another aspect the No camp hasn't sufficiently engaged with is what (by common grace) technology enables us to do. We've all had meaningful social interactions online, where we have laughed and cried, and yes, even had food and drink in an online fashion. It's a real thing.
11. A wise head made the point to me yesterday that if (God forbid) this crisis goes on much longer than expected, some churches may be forced to change their stance.
His words: "It is just not a good thing for God's people to not remember the Lord’s death for a prolonged period"
His words: "It is just not a good thing for God's people to not remember the Lord’s death for a prolonged period"
12. All that said, we may still believe that in a live online setting communion isn't meaningful. The corporate symbolism of passing the bread from hand to hand is lost.
I also agree with Scott Swain that we must lament at this time, and somehow reflect a time of 'fasting.'
I also agree with Scott Swain that we must lament at this time, and somehow reflect a time of 'fasting.'
13. It probably sounds like I'm in the Yes camp, but I'm actually still trying to finalise my position.
But at the risk of being pilloried...
But at the risk of being pilloried...
14.... I wanted to raise the dillema that some of us are still feeling.
In this unprecedented case, with technological capability, with everything else lacking physicality and being a shadow of how we normally do it, why not communion?
In this unprecedented case, with technological capability, with everything else lacking physicality and being a shadow of how we normally do it, why not communion?
