The following is my response to a theological opinion issued by the CTCR on March 20, 2020 regarding the question of whether the Lord’s Supper, offered online, is efficacious or not. The CTCR is known for offering helpful opinions to theological questions of the day. In my opinion, this is not one of them.
To be clear, I really didn't have a dog in this fight until a District President came after my friend Pastor Eric (who has about a month to live because of cancer) because he was offering online communion to his congregation during this horrific pandemic. Then when I read the CTCR opinion which was used as a club on Eric, I felt I needed to respond. (I've always had more courage than sense.)
My response is not meant to address all concerns. This is a narrowly focused response to a narrowly focused CTCR opinion. The CTCR opinion is discouraging many pastors and congregations from offering the Lord's Supper online, even though the pastors and congregations had thought it through theologically and deemed it appropriate according to the clear words of Jesus and Luther's simple explanation.
My goal with this response is not to suggest that every congregation SHOULD offer online communion, but to encourage those who are considering it, especially during Holy Week, by outlining why online communion can be a faithful way to celebrate the Lord's Supper, honoring both Christ's words as well as Luther's explanation.
A Counter Opinion to the CTCR Opinion of March 20, 2020 Concerning the Efficacy of the Lord’s Supper If Instituted While Using Online Technology
Rev. Greg Finke, St. Paul, MN | Palm Sunday, April 5, 2020
Introduction
Since late February, congregations and pastors have faced unprecedented challenges because of the coronavirus pandemic. For the sake of the vulnerable among us, we have rightly and wisely chosen to practice social distancing. Already there are too many heartbreaking stories of well-meaning parishioners gathering for worship only to see the virus spread among the congregation and members getting sick and dying. Therefore, we have wisely and lovingly chosen not to gather in our buildings around Word and Sacraments with our brothers and sisters. In centuries past, because we would have been physically separated, we would have been utterly separated, indeed. There were no other alternatives.
Of course, now there are. In spite of not being able to safely gather in our buildings around Word and Sacrament, we can still gather around Word and Sacrament via computer. Because of technology, even though we are physically separated, we are not utterly separated. We can still hear the gospel. We can still hear our pastors speak the Words of Jesus for instituting the Lord’s Supper. And we can still have the bread and wine in our homes consecrated by those Words of Jesus.
By God’s grace, technology has enabled us to extend the reach of the Word and the liturgy of the Lord’s Supper beyond the walls and acoustics of a church building into our members’ homes.
Any little child raised in the Lutheran Church knows that the Words of Jesus are the Words of Jesus no matter how they may be conveyed. If dad and mom read these words from a book, they are the Words of Jesus. If she hears them on the radio, they are the Words of Jesus. And if you were to ask her after hearing her pastor speak the Words of Jesus in the liturgy of the Lord’s Supper online, “Were those the Words of Jesus you just heard?” she would of course say, “Yes!” Why? Because they ARE the Words of Jesus. As Lutherans we believe and confess the efficacy of God’s Word. Whether coming via print, radio waves or the internet does not take away any of His Word’s power and effectiveness.
However, on March 20, 2020, the CTCR (Commission on Theology and Church Relations), came out with an opinion at odds with the understanding I have and many LCMS people have regarding the efficacy of celebrating the Lord’s Supper online.
Who is the CTCR? It is a committee of 16 LCMS theologians (a few of whom I know personally and consider friends) who are charged with studying theological questions submitted by the Synod (and Synod officials) and rendering opinions that inform the discussion of congregations and Synodical leaders as they sort through theological challenges and questions of the day.
I read through the opinion [you can read the opinion by clicking the button at the bottom of this blog post], and although the CTCR has issued many helpful documents over the years, this one, in my opinion, was a clunker. I felt its arguments were one-sided and its tone dismissive of opinions like mine which are contrary to the ones the CTCR holds on this question. After reading it, I was unimpressed and did not agree with the final opinion. I’ll admit I was even a little angry about it. But that’s okay. Such disagreement with a CTCR opinion is perfectly acceptable. The CTCR is not charged with creating doctrine. Their opinions are not binding. The opinions are intended to be informative and add to the discussion of the Synod. Regarding the efficacy of online communion, it is one opinion to be considered. Take it or leave it. And I was leaving this one.
That is, until I began to see that this CTCR opinion was having two disastrous consequences for the faithful members of the LCMS. And so, I have written this response to offer a counterbalance to what I think is an unbalanced opinion from the CTCR.
The Consequences of the CTCR’s Opinion
Although the CTCR did not intend it, their published opinion has unleashed two severe consequences:
1. The Lord’s Supper is now being refused to hundreds of thousands of faithful members for the foreseeable future, and during a time when the Lord’s Supper’s assurance and comfort are sorely needed.
2. The CTCR’s opinion was immediately weaponized by certain ecclesiastical supervisors (and meddling-clergymen) against faithful congregations and pastors who do not agree with this opinion. They are being threatened with the charge of heresy and removal from the Synod unless they comply with the opinion.
Weaponizing Human Opinion
Obviously weaponizing what the Synod and the CTCR meant to be an “opinion” is shameful. But it is already happening.
How should we respond if ecclesiastical supervisors or meddling-clergymen are weaponizing opinions and bullying the faithful?
When meddling-clergy try to force their opinions on to congregations to which they have no call, we can follow the advice of Paul in 2 Thessalonians 3:11-13, “We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat. And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is good,” (NIV). Disruptive busybodies need to be called out, told to settle down and get back to the work of pastoring their own flocks.
How should we respond to ecclesiastical supervisors who weaponize their opinions to force conformity?
In Acts 5, when Peter and the apostles were called before the ecclesiastical supervisors of their day and they demanded that the apostles conform to opinions that were clearly wrong, they responded – in spite of threats and bullying – with faithfulness and courage. Their response can be our model. Acts 5:28, “We must obey God rather than men.” There were, of course, consequences to endure. The apostles were flogged for standing their ground. But when they left, they “left the Sanhedrin rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name,” (Acts 5:41).
Likewise, when Luther was brought before the ecclesiastical supervisors of his day and they demanded that he to conform to opinions that were clearly wrong, he responded – in spite of threats and bullying – with faithfulness and courage. His response can be our model, “Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen.”
A Counterbalance to the CTCR’s Opinion
During this uncertain, dangerous pandemic, when we are unable to gather in our church buildings at our altars, many faithful LCMS congregations throughout the U.S. have been offering the Lord’s Supper online. It is simple to do. Members have bread and wine in their homes. The pastor speaks the words of institution via a live internet connection. Having heard and believed the Words of Jesus, the members eat the bread and drink the wine… just like they have always done since they were confirmed. In the eating and drinking, members believe they have received what Jesus promises, His very body and blood for the forgiveness of their sins. Gift offered. Gift received. At the core of this confidence is a simple, well known Lutheran belief: The Words of Jesus are the Words of Jesus no matter how they are conveyed.
However, the CTCR has a different opinion of what happens via such an online experience. In the conclusion to the document they write that they “in no way intended to pass judgment on the motives of those involved,” which is no doubt true. But that kindness aside, the rest of the document dismisses the members’ confidence that Jesus is able to do what He promises to do through His Word no matter how it is conveyed – whether a live internet connection or in person. The CTCR’s opinion is that, because the sacrament was not instituted by a pastor standing immediately over the elements, it is “uncertain”. Such language is sprinkled throughout the opinion. According to them, the celebration of online communion is an “unsatisfactory solution,” “faulty,” a “novelty,” “introduces doubts or uncertainty,” and is an “uncertain sacrament.”
Clearly, if the CTCR talked to anyone with a counter opinion as part of their research, it had no impact on their thinking. Not once in the document is a counterargument made for the possible efficacy of online communion.
And, that’s fine. Remember, it’s only an opinion… an opinion I feel is one-sided and not well thought out, but, under normal circumstances, an opinion over which I could shrug my shoulders and move on. Except these are not normal circumstances. And the question of whether online communion is efficacious or not is no longer an academic exercise for theologians but a very urgent question for congregations in pain. So, when I saw congregations who are joyfully receiving the Lord’s Supper online from their pastors now being told it is “uncertain” and “faulty” in what I consider a one-sided way, I was motivated to offer a counter opinion.
What follows are the two main reasons why I believe the CTCR’s rationale for discouraging the use of technology as a way to facilitate the Lord’s Supper are faulty. I will use bold type for quotes I am highlighting from the CTCR opinion, and I will leave many of the quotes in context.
The CTCR’s opinion is faulty when they:
1. Undermine the efficacy of God’s Word no matter how the Word is conveyed
2. Introduce doubt to the faithful where previously there was no doubt
#1: The Opinion undermines the efficacy of God’s Word no matter how the Word is conveyed.
The opinion goes back and forth between affirming the efficacy of God’s Word and then undermining it.
On the one hand they affirm the efficacy of God’s Word no matter how it is conveyed when they write:
“Such churches are able to find various ways to help members to hear the Word of Christ richly. From telephone calls to emails to website messaging to instant messaging to sermon streaming, the Word is being heard and received in the midst of the coronavirus.”
But then in the very next sentence, they undermine it:
“But what of the Sacrament of the Altar? The forgiveness of sins is not prevented when one cannot commune, for it is delivered by the Gospel as it is read and preached and spoken by the royal priesthood and also in the sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Supper as well as in Absolution. But it is only in the Lord’s Supper that we eat and drink Christ’s very body and blood. It thereby offers a special assurance that is proper only to it, just as Baptism has its own assurances.”
Somehow, the Words of Jesus are efficacious online when the Gospel is read or when an absolution is spoken, but the CTCR doubts the efficacy of the Words of Jesus when they are spoken online for the institution of the Lord’s Supper?
Every confirmand knows how Christ’s very body and blood is present in the Sacrament: through the gracious Words of Jesus alone. Luther explained it this way in the Small Catechism, “How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things? It is not the eating and drinking indeed that does them, but the words here written, ‘Given and shed for you for you for the remission of sins’; which words, besides the bodily eating and drinking, are the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins.”
Should we doubt the efficacy of the Words of Jesus because they are spoken online rather than in a building?
Luther rightly does not include any other qualifiers to the efficacy of the Lord’s Supper because God’s Word does not. Luther does not say “Besides the Words of Jesus, the faith of the hearer and the eating and drinking, you also need to be concerned about where the Words of Jesus are spoken in order to be assured that you have what Jesus promises.” Why does the CTCR introduce this qualification that is not in the Scriptures or noted by Luther?
One may ask, “How can congregations have confidence they are receiving the Lord’s Supper online?” Simple. They believe what all Lutherans are taught: “…and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins.” The congregation hears Jesus’ Words; believes what He offers with the bread and wine; and then eats and drinks.
As we noted in the introduction, if any little child heard the Words of Jesus being spoken by their pastor online and we then asked the child, “Were those the Words of Jesus?” she would say, “Yes!”
Do we believe the Words of Jesus are the Words of Jesus no matter how they are conveyed? Of course. Do the Words of Jesus get short-circuited as they pass through the internet? Of course not.
#2: The Opinion introduces doubt to the faithful where previously there was no doubt.
Did faithful people in our Synod already have questions and doubts about celebrating the Lord’s Supper online before the CTCR’s opinion was published? Of course. That’s why the CTCR was given the topic to study in the first place. My goal with this critique is not to convince the reader that one MUST participate in the Lord’s Super if it is offered online, but that there is a solid Scriptural, Lutheran basis for addressing the doubts one may have, a basis the CTCR is silent on. If a congregation or individual still has doubts after considering both sets of opinions, then, by all means, abstain from the Lord’s Supper until you can celebrate it in a way that overcomes your doubts.
However, there are many faithful theologians, congregations and individual members of the LCMS who had already worked through their questions about online communion previous to the publishing of the CTCR’s opinion. They are currently celebrating the Lord’s Supper online without doubts. They did their theological work and have ultimately put their faith in the same teachings they always have: The Words of Jesus and the explanation of Luther.
Unfortunately, as we quoted earlier, the CTCR’s opinion is that there should be doubt about the efficacy of the Lord Supper if it is instituted online. It seems that, if they considered the theological work done by those who would advocate online communion, they disregarded it completely. There is no mention of other theological opinions besides the one they present.
So, inevitably, if online communion is to be doubted, their best advice to the faithful during the pandemic is not to commune at all.
Regarding the inevitable hardship not communing will be, the CTCR is empathetic:
“The inability to commune is therefore no small matter, but a true hardship!”
“We know, however, that the church has known this hardship at other times and not only in our own time. During the early years of colonial America, Lutherans often went weeks or months without the Supper. Congregations without a pastor are often unable to receive the Lord’s Supper in their services because supply pastors are unavailable—sometimes for lengthy time periods. And, in the early 20th century during the great influenza epidemic of 1918–1919, many Missouri Synod churches were not able to meet for any services during a period of time. We are not in uncharted territory.”
My counter opinion is that while not communing is, indeed, a hardship, it is an unnecessary hardship.
In the past, the church has known this hardship because we lacked the gift of technology. However, it is no longer an inevitable hardship that we have to endure in the same way. The CTCR’s assertion that “we are not in uncharted territory” is inaccurate. We are in a whole new world.
In the past, we may have been prevented from partaking of the Sacrament for a variety of reasons, but for the first time we now have a new tool to overcome the old hardship. We are not living in the 1800’s or in 1918. We are not living in an era when the only way to speak to someone is if you are standing in front of them. This is 2020. We understand that God has allowed us amazing tools – tools we can now use to extend the reach of the Word and the liturgy of the Lord’s Supper beyond the walls and acoustics of a church building into our members’ homes no matter what physically separates us.
It is my opinion that to compound the already odious hardships of the pandemic by also discouraging congregations from receiving the Lord’s Supper is unnecessary because we have new tools which overcome our separation and honor the basic requirements of Scripture: The Words of Jesus, the faith of the hearer and the eating of the elements.
However, the CTCR opinion is that we should be suspicious of these new tools, calling them “novelties,” “humanly-instituted techniques,” and “personal idiosyncrasy.” This opinion rings hollow since the Church has introduced many such “novelties” and “personal idiosyncrasies” over the centuries.
For instance, congregations introduced the novelty of using English instead of Aramaic in speaking the Words of Institution, wafers instead of a loaf, individual cups instead of a common cup, liturgy in a formal service instead of a meal in a home, communing with a sanctuary full of strangers instead of with family and friends around the dinner table. When introduced, these were all novelties, techniques and idiosyncrasies. The difference, of course, between those novelties and the novelty of using online tools is that we are now used to those novelties.
Nevertheless, the CTCR writes:
“Some unsatisfactory solutions to the unavailability of the Sacrament have been suggested at the present time. One is that a pastor speak the words of institution from the church during a streaming service while everyone communes at home... While the hunger and thirst for the Lord’s Supper that leads to such measures is both understandable and commendable, the solutions are nevertheless faulty.”
“A video streaming ‘consecration’ with words spoken by the pastor remotely and communion elements in member homes is almost identical to an approach that the CTCR addressed in 2006 in which the Commission said:
1. The Lord’s Supper was instituted by Jesus with words and actions spoken and carried out by him in the direct presence of his disciples (Matt. 26:26-28). Throughout history, the church has sought to be faithful to Christ’s practice in this regard. Pastors speak the words of institution in the presence of the assembled congregation, thereby giving assurance that we are “doing this” as our Lord has instructed us to do (Luke 22:19). Whenever the actual words and actions of the celebrant in consecrating the elements are intentionally separated (by time, distance, or technological means) from the distribution and reception, no assurance can be given that our Lord’s instructions are being heeded and that the body and blood of Christ are actually being given and received for the forgiveness of sins and the strengthening of faith (cf. fn. 15 of the CTCR’s 1983 report Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper [TPLS]).
Wow. That’s quite a pronouncement. But is it accurate? And on what basis do they assert this opinion with such certainty? On the basis of another CTCR opinion issued in 2006 which quotes another CTCR opinion from 1983?
Deeming the solution of online communion as “unsatisfactory” and “faulty” is certainly the right of the CTCR. They are entitled to their opinion. But forming that opinion based on whether the Lord’s Supper is being instituted correctly enough or following the instructions of Jesus closely enough is a slippery slope to take. Is the Lord’s Supper the Lord’s Supper because we do it correctly enough or because the Lord keeps His promises in spite of us? Is our assurance of the real presence of Christ based on how closely we have been able to adhere to His instructions or based on how closely He has adhered to His promises?
The CTCR’s basis for its opinion, whether they meant it to or not, introduces grave uncertainty into every celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Once we introduce degrees of adherence to the law in order to verify if we have the Lord’s Supper or not, we have introduced doubt and uncertainty into every celebration. How can we really be sure that we are doing it correctly enough? How can we really be sure the pastor got it absolutely perfect? How can I really be sure I believe enough or believe correctly enough to be worthy?
Praise be to God that this has never been our basis for assurance. It has always and only been because of Jesus, for “we believe, teach and confess that no man’s work nor the recitation of the minister effect this presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, but it is to be ascribed solely and alone to the almighty power of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Formula of Concord, Ep VII, 8).
Conclusion
Many congregations and pastors have evaluated online solutions and consider them to be God-sends during a very difficult time. They do not consider the solutions “faulty” because they know and believe that the Words of Jesus are the Words of Jesus no matter how they are conveyed. Again, Luther in the Small Catechism: “How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things? It is not the eating and drinking indeed that does them, but the words here written, ‘Given and shed for you for you for the remission of sins’; which words, besides the bodily eating and drinking, are the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins.”
Do faithful people in our Synod have different opinions about celebrating the Lord’s Supper online? Of course. Faithful theologians, congregations and individual members disagree all the time on many theological questions. In this case, my goal is not to assert that my opinion is the right one or that all people should agree with me.
My goal is to provide a counter opinion to the CTCR opinion and to let people know that there are many well-trained, highly-educated, biblically-faithful LCMS pastors and members who do not doubt the efficacy of online communion and that this confidence is not born out of the rightness of the opinion, but out of the clarity and simplicity of the Words of Jesus and the explanation of Luther.
Thanks be to God!
Rev. Greg Finke, St. Paul, MN