Online Communion - A Necessary Compromise for Extraordinary Times?

“We don’t need to think about this too deeply. Doing communion online is just a necessary compromise. It’s a pragmatic response to the extraordinary circumstances we are in. That’s too philosophical for me. Surely as Christians we should be able to settle this with our Bible’s open.”

This is what I imagine some people were thinking if they read my last two blogs (here and here). I understand that sentiment and would not normally choose to take a philosophical approach to something as sacred and important as Communion. Why did I think it was necessary in this situation?

Not because I think philosophy has the answers, but because I am convinced it does not. I am offering counter-arguments to the philosophical arguments used by some who are speaking in favour of online communion. In short, if you agree to drop your philosophical arguments and stick to Scripture, I’ll drop mine!

Everyone agrees that the biblical words require us to ‘come together’ (1 Cor 11:20). We disagree about whether ‘coming together’ includes online ‘meeting’. Because it is impossible to demonstrate that the biblical concept of ‘meeting’ includes ‘online gathering’ by direct appeal to Scripture, some advocates of online communion have appealed to philosophers like John Locke and Immanuel Kant in their arguments. This is an implicit acknowledgement that taken on its own, Scripture is not enough to support their position. These extra-biblical arguments might sound common sense to many people but this is not because it is actually common sense. It only appears to be because this philosophy has a massive unconscious influence on western culture, art, entertainment, religion, education... Many of us living in the ‘secular West’ take these ideas for granted without realising we are doing it but people living in different times and places have completely different understandings of common sense.

Challenging the philosophical arguments which others have already offered is far more important than you might realise. Put simply, if you take the ‘insights’ from Locke which have been used to give an veneer of intellectual respectability to online communion, and apply them consistently you would soon be denying that Scripture is God’s self-revelation and then veer into a range of Gospel-denying heresies. Starting with Locke is theological suicide.

“Fine”, you say. “I didn’t understand all that Locke and Kant stuff in the first place. Online communion is just a practical necessity during extraordinary times. We have to do it one way or another, and in these circumstances this is the only way”.

That is probably where most people are at. And although I don’t agree, I have a lot more sympathy with you. If this is a grass roots desire to keep a clear conscience in obeying Jesus Christ as Lord, then I wouldn’t dare to think of challenging the ‘spirit’ of that with philosophical arguments. This is the most fundamental principle in the whole of biblical, evangelical spirituality - what we often call ‘heart religion’.

However, I still do not agree with online communion as a practice. That is because if you have a real desire to obey the Lord, you will be keen to think through what obedience requires. And that takes us back to where we started: can we obey the requirement of ‘coming together’ without gathering physically? If internet ‘gathering’ is really coming together, then ‘online communion’ is a legitimate way of ‘doing it’. But if internet ‘gathering’ is not really coming together, then ‘online communion’ is not ‘doing it’ at all.

Rather than go around again in that particular whirlpool - I’m getting a bit dizzy - I just want to raise a few questions which would seem to confront those who have decided that ‘online communion is a necessary practical response to extraordinary circumstances’.

(1) How do you assess what is actually extraordinary in a media driven world? As the coronavirus clouds began to emerge on the horizon many of us raised our personal ‘panic levels’ to yellow or orange, if not red. You likely bought some extra toilet paper, even if you did not go the whole hog with cupboards full of spaghetti and bottled water and fighting over hand sanitiser. There were plenty of disturbing images and stories online and 9 out of 10 reports used the word ‘unprecedented’. But is it unprecedented? Not really. Is it the first time churches have closed their doors? No, they did it to hinder the spread of Spanish flu and (presumably) the Black Plague in days gone by. I assume that West African churches don’t meet during Ebola outbreaks. If anything, what is unprecedented is to have gone for such a long period of time without the life of the church being hindered by pandemic, politics, or persecution. So is this actually an extraordinary time? And how extraordinary do things have to become before practical compromises become permissible? How are we assessing this as Christians?

(2) ‘Extraordinary’ for who? Your normal is my abnormal. My usual is your unusual. At the moment, the majority of Christians are experiencing extraordinary circumstances. “We cannot envisage going a few months without gathering for communion! We must do it online!” But there are members in our churches for whom this is the norm because they are housebound due to age, disability, or long-term care responsibilities. If online communion is a legitimate accommodation when the majority are experiencing a crisis why could we not see the needs of the minority before?! Could there be a mild rebuke in this? Is it highlighting a blind spot? It did not please the Apostle Paul that the financially and socially rich Corinthians rushed to the Table ahead of the poor. Have we, in our own way, been rushing to the Table without thinking of those in our churches who are less privileged?

(3) What happens if the current ‘extraordinary’ becomes normalised? If there is a second (or third, fourth, fifth) wave, or another novel virus pandemic at some point the current  ‘extraordinary’ could become quite ordinary. But that is not the only sort of ‘normalising’ we need to think about. There was a time when most people did their shopping at the local store but that has given way to ‘Amazon’ and online shopping. We used to have a handful of TV analogue channels and a radio now we have a choice of internet entertainment providers offering more music, movies, and shows than we have time to watch. What was once extraordinary has become ordinary and it is hard to imagine ever going back. This has an impact on us, psychologically. It has changed our behaviour. Not wishing to be vulgar, one of the clearest examples of this is the way in which, for many people, ‘internet porn’ has normalised  ‘sexual experience’ as a non-physical, mental fantasy; this can create massive psychological obstacles when it comes to pursuing physical intimacy with a real human being. Likewise, we know that the internet is a powerful ‘normalising’ tool, because we tend to filter out people who disagree with us and therefore gravitate towards online communities of people who share and reinforce our opinions and censor disagreement. None of us really know what psychological and social ‘normalising’ might happen through online services in general or online communion specifically. There will be an impact - big or small - but it will only become clear in hindsight.

(4) How will the arguments we are using now be employed in more normal times? Some of the arguments being used to support online communion as a temporary practical response are actually arguments of permanent principle. For example, if you argue that ‘there is no essential difference’ between an online vs physical meeting, that is something which must be true all the time. It will be true in 6 months. It will be true a year from now. If it is true now, it is true always. So fast-forward, in your imagination, to 2022 and a pastoral visit with a member who has not been to a physical gathered church meeting for months:

“But pastor I watch the service online. Remember back in 2020 you told me that there is no essential difference between meeting in person and meeting online! Are you now trying to tell me that physical presence is necessary to meeting after all?! In fact, why have you even come to my house? We could have had this discussion on Zoom. That would have saved you the cost of petrol to get here. Fuel prices are extraordinarily high at the moment!”

How will you answer when the arguments you use for online meeting in ‘extraordinary’ times become the stock resources for people for those who are neglecting physically meeting together in ‘ordinary’ times? At that point I suspect that those who are advocating online communion will resort to the arguments currently being offered by those who reject the notion of online communion all together...