Convention Concerns, Part 3: On the Abuse of the Sacrament During COVID

Another item for the LCMS Convention, offered in hopes of facilitating fraternal discussion and awareness for delegates and members of the Synod on matters expected to be before the Convention. Respectfully, we pray for a God-pleasing outcome and wish the Synod well.

Resolution 4-06, “To Encourage In-Person Corporate Worship,” might be considered helpful in its encouragement, but to say the least, it could have been stronger. After all, for a Christian Synod to resolve to encourage worship is, particular concerns aside, about as bland as can be. It's one of those let's-thank-God-for-such-and-such type resolutions that everyone can assent to. Fine. Ok.

But two of the Workbook overtures that formed the basis for this are much stronger, and ought to be considered.

Ov 4-07 from the Montana District has this: "Resolved, That congregations of the district be discouraged from practicing remote membership and virtual congregations." This gets into what ought not to be done, or rather, what ought not to have been done, during the COVID years. Which is, actually, what occasioned this resolution's consideration in the first place, right?

Honestly, are we afraid to call a spade a spade? Some pretty shabby practices went on during those days, you will recall, including drive-through communion, and even online communion. This kind of thing is unconscionable, and it makes even the likes of Carlstadt and Zwingli look good! So we respond by merely encouraging worship in person? If we limit ourselves to irenics in such an environment, we fail to address the elephant in the room.

Ov 4-08 is even stronger than 4-07, coming from Circuit 10 (Middle Tennessee), Mid-South District, and Circuit 9 (Nashville), Mid-South District. Consider these hard-hitting whereases:

"WHEREAS, It is erroneous to teach that the Sacrament of the Altar is 'a matter of liberty, not of necessity, and that it is enough if [Christians] simply believe. Thus, the great majority go so far that they become quite barbarous and ultimately despise both the Sacrament and God’s Word' (Large Catechism V 41 [Tappert]); and

"WHEREAS, During the years 2020, 2021, and 2022, responses to the COVID-19 pandemic by congregations, pastors, Synod leadership, and affiliated educational institutions included the cancellation of communal, in-person worship services, the 'online' administration of the Sacrament, the urging of experimental and controversially-sourced vaccinations, and the submission to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s vaccine mandate; and

"WHEREAS, These responses inculcated in God’s flock and the world at-large the ideas that communal, in-person worship is nonessential, that worship of God should give way to earthly fear, and that public opinion or government demand can supersede the command of God; and

"WHEREAS, These responses undoubtedly led to a burdening of Christian consciences and false accusations of not loving one’s neighbor as oneself; and

"WHEREAS, The great societal distress over the COVID-19 pandemic ought to have finally compelled the Church to keep her doors open"

Now that gets to the point, don't you think? I mean, precisely.

The lone Resolved it offers is this:

"therefore be it

"Resolved, That the Synod appoint a Sunday as a day of fasting, prayer, and repentance, for the response to the COVID-19 pandemic during the years 2020, 2021, and 2022 . . .:

I don't know if that particular resolution is in order, but at least some sort of amendment putting a little teeth into this would be nice to see.

A much better proposed resolution in this regard comes from Floor Committee 5. I refer to Res 5-08 “To Affirm In-Person Communion.” There we find this:

“Resolved, That we commend the desires of faithful pastors to care for their flocks in a time of pandemic, granting charity and latitude to our brothers in the office due to the emergency nature of the situation confronting us all; and be it further

“Resolved, That the Synod’s district presidents and those who assist them be counseled and urged to instruct our pastors and congregations on the basis of Holy Scripture’s exhortation to gather in person to celebrate the Lord’s Supper and on the basis of the examples of the Augsburg Confession Articles VII and XXIV, to refrain from the practice of online Communion, ensuring that those pastors and congregations who continue to practice online Communion after due fraternal admonition be subject to appropriate ecclesiastical counsel, instruction, and discipline; and be it further

“Resolved, That the congregations of the Synod be encouraged to clearly and unequivocally reject and condemn the practice of virtual (online) Communion by teaching members of the specific challenges; and be it finally

“Resolved, That those who are hindered for a time from bodily participation in Holy Communion be encouraged to content themselves with the power of the Word and the exercise of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Now there’s a much better resolution. While on the one hand granting charity due to the difficulty of the emergency situation, on the other hand it promotes admonition and discipline where called for.

Then there's Res-15, “To Uphold Proper Elements and Reverential Administration of the Lord’s Supper,” which deals well, amog other things, with the matter of pre-filled communion cup and wafer sets in corporate worship, another COVID abuse that arose. But being the 15th resolution, it’s less likely to be acted on

It’d be nice, in short, for this first convention after COVID to have something definitive to say about the abuse that arose.