Comments on Anglican Centrist: Voices from the Pews: Baptism and Communion

I am grateful for all the dialogue here. I disagr...

2008-05-08T13:18:00.000-07:00

I am grateful for all the dialogue here. I disagree with my beloved Godfather that this is about legalism vs. grace - and that legalism should prevail. But, I am glad folks got to talk it over. Brother Doug Hayes has a sharp mind, and too sees that this is a watershed issue for the Episcopal Church going beyond issues around sexuality and identity.

If "law" or "rules" or "norms" are as strictly opp...

2008-05-07T13:13:00.000-07:00

If "law" or "rules" or "norms" are as strictly opposed to grace as some of these comments in favor of CWOB seem to suggest, then we are not only free to set aside baptism as the avenue of approach to the Eucharistic table; we are also free to set aside Jesus' teachings, example, and commandments when we deem doing so to be the "inclusive" thing to do. Indeed, we are free to set Jesus himself aside if being "inclusive" calls for it.

dr dobson,You've touched on one of the big problem...

2008-05-07T12:55:00.000-07:00

dr dobson,

You've touched on one of the big problems that I have with CWOB: the notion that, if one is not allowed to receive the Eucharist, it means that one is outside the love and mercy of God. Even I don't have that high a view of the Sacrament! Besides, it is simply not true. If one is not allowed to receive the Eucharist, it means that one is not a Christian; whether or not God loves someone is, of course, entirely up to him. As Allison said earlier, the Eucharist is meant to spritually nourish the baptized so that they, in turn, can be the Body of Christ to the rest of the world. And if someone does think that inability to receive the Eucharist is a sign of God's disfavor, then the solution is better theological education, not CWOB.

Also, I must object to the false dichotomies you set up between law and grace and inclusivity and exclusivity. Whenever someone uses the words "inclusive" and "exclusive", I'm always left asking, "Of what?". What one person sees as a basis for being included, another person will feel excluded by. Similarly, sometmes grace works through legal processes, as we're currently seeing in the reconstitution of the Diocese of San Joaquin.

(I agree with The Godfather, though: let's follow ...

2008-05-07T11:46:00.000-07:00

(I agree with The Godfather, though: let's follow the rules we ourselves have set, in any case. What's really happening is that priests are ignoring the laity; General Convention is the one place where laity have some say about what our church does. And GC is being ignored by the clergy at present.)

Anyway, any and all people are asked to come forwa...

2008-05-07T11:41:00.000-07:00

Anyway, any and all people are asked to come forward for a blessing; we are not really being "exclusionary" at all.

But, we could offer blessed, not consecrated bread, if we wanted to offer something tangible to eat. I'd love that, myself.

(What I find really interesting, BTW, is that the whole argument these days about liturgy is that we ought to go "back to the early church" and reclaim the practices that were lost in later periods! But not this one, I guess....)

Bryan+ While I appreciate your defense of the fait...

2008-05-07T11:21:00.000-07:00

Bryan+

While I appreciate your defense of the faith, practice and witness of the early church, let's not forget what the early church also gave us: destruction, domination and the imperialism of the faith. Indeed the very beginnings of Anglicanism were rife with such behavior. Seems to me that those who espouse the Eucharist for even the unbaptized don't have the market cornered on hubris.

I think there are two issues at play here (among many others, no doubt): a) this really is an issue of law versus grace; and b) this is also an issue of considering onesself an inclusive or exclusive Christian.

As to the first point, we would all agree that the Eucharist, as defined by the early church and, by extension TEC, was/is a sacrament to be honored and observed in accordance with the guidelines given by Jesus at the Last Supper. Though this sacrament has largely been preserved in this manner, we should never discount the means of God's grace received at that moment--God's grace is for all, not just those who recite the right words (thanks truly be to God on this point). To celebrate the Eucharist (or "thanksgiving") together as Episcopaleans, we should be baptized. To allow our non-Episcopalean brothers and sisters to celebrate it with us is, too, directly in line with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

As to the second point, I think it is of primary importance that one who associates with a group of also-like-minded folks espouses to the guidelines and principles of such group. If this means that one "must" have been baptized before being allowed admission to the Eucharist rail, well then I have a problem with that and I think Jesus would, too. If, however, there is a community of faith that represents the embodiment of Christ so well so that this unbaptized participant wants to be baptized because there is an overwhelming sense of God's grace, mercy and redemption (again, as embodied by the group), then we're on to something and the "goal of the Gospels" is closer to being achieved.

To exclude someone from the Eucharist (and, thus, from God's grace and mercy) seems to me as anything but the nature and character of God. We should be forever changed by God's grace and mercy to the point that it so affects our relationships with one another that we, the church, as the Body of Christ, are defined by words like "welcome", "grace", "redemption", "peace", "reconciliation" and the like.

I dare say it like this: if we as TEC kept our focus on God's extension of grace to us, then our activity and behavior in relation to those outside of our cloister would look alot like our extending this grace to others--which certainly includes those in our midst. When we continue to believe that we have God's sole and exclusive election as to whom is to receive grace, then we are anything but his church.

Taken to its logical end, one could argue that is was canon and the law that crucified Jesus. We must make sure that our canon and adherence to "law" does not make martyrs out of would-be-communicants before they've even had a chance to approach the rail for a taste of God's great grace and mercy. Is the Eucharist a membership card to a certain belief system? If yes, then of course we should bear all marks required thereof. If, however, the Eucharist represents one method by which God extends grace and mercy to us, then we have but one response: gratitude and "thanksgiving."

As others have stated, I think the best that argum...

2008-05-07T10:41:00.000-07:00

As others have stated, I think the best that arguments for CWOB can support is a "don't ask/don't tell" approach. I was once encouraged by a bishop, "when in doubt, feed;" but the context was children being raised in the Church, greater likelihood that they had been baptized.

I fear, beyond a "when in doubt" situation, that if we do not continue to see formation, demonstrated and ending in baptism, as normative for participation in the life of the Church, we demonstrate most clearly that our is indeed (in the words of adolescents critiquing the Church in favor of some "newly discovered" faith) "a religion and not a lifestyle." Our society has largely vitiated any importance to rites of passage, and our people suffer issues of identity because of it. We might want to welcome and encourage "God-fearers;" for of such was the early Christian community formed. We can appreciate that our rite of passage is less difficult than circumcision. I don't think we do well to lose the normative expectation.

Which does raise another question: why would a self-respecting non-Christian want to receive communion, understood as we understand it? The few who would want to receive communion, understood as we understand it, and who might receive it before baptism, are not really an issue for me. They are in God's hands, and in God's formation until they are ready to come for baptism. At the same time, I can't see that we do well to change our invitation, or our understanding of how the Body is formed.

Allison,I think that's a lovely way of putting it:...

2008-05-07T09:37:00.000-07:00

Allison,

I think that's a lovely way of putting it: the Eucharistic elements nourish the baptized to be the Body of Christ to the world.

Also, the last paragraph of your post got me thinking: my sense is that a lot of people think that those against CWOB are in favor of "carding" people at the altar or some such thing. In my opinion, there should be no stronger enforcement of the canon than the honor system.

Is it possible that, in offering Communion to the ...

2008-05-07T09:22:00.000-07:00

Is it possible that, in offering Communion to the unbaptized, we are making a category mistake?

It seems to me that we baptized Christians are, ourselves, supposed to be the Body of Christ in and to the world, and to our unbaptized neighbors.

We need Communion. We need it for strenghth to go back out into the world and among our neighbors, and bring Christ to them, not in Communion, but in ourselves. Our unbaptized neighbors need - and deserve - not Communion, but us, living into our identity, filled with the Spirit, and strengthened by the Bread of Heaven and the Cup of Salvation.

I know I am not adequate to this task. Who could be? But that is what we are all called to do.

Now, I should add that I am glad that we do not quiz people kneeling at the altar rail; I know that there are instances where an unbaptized person, in recieving communion, does receive great grace from God; and I am sure that when an unbaptized person has - in good will or through ignorance - recieved communion, great pastoral sensitivity is required, coupled, if possible, with encouragement towards Baptism. (And even more sensitivity in the case of children, who will simply stretch out their hands in immitation of the adults around them.)

Something to ponder about..."I am 14 years old and...

2008-05-07T08:37:00.000-07:00

Something to ponder about...

"I am 14 years old and have been attending the Episcopal church in my town for the last couple of years with my friend. Each week, we meet at church, go to the service and then Sunday School. I have never been baptized and while my parents do not object that I go to church, they have no interest in getting me baptized. I've been taking communion and want to continue. Then, when I'm 18, I'll asked to be baptized."

Greg,I've been following your posts on this questi...

2008-05-07T08:21:00.000-07:00

Greg,

I've been following your posts on this question with some interest as I think that this, and not The Gay, is the most serious issue that our Church is currently wrestling with.

Theological issues aside (and on those, I second everything bryan+ said above), I just can't wrap my mind around the mentality behind CWOB. A propos your comment on giving offense to the too easily offended, if I were attending the worship services of a religion that I didn't belong to, and there were some act that I couldn't participate in because I didn't belong to the religion, I would understand completely. Similarly, what kind of people expect to be treated as a full member of the community from the moment they darken its doors and walk away in a huff when they aren't?

I think a lot of this debate has come to be because we've failed to sufficiently reflect as a community on the nature of inclusivity. Often, when the word is mentioned in relation to church matters, it's invoked as an end in itself, a puffy, sparkling cloud at whose mention all good people gasp in awe and reverence. As Christians, the basis for inclusivity is the very concrete act of Baptism, and indeed, the strongest arguments for the equal place of women and LGBT people in the life of the Church have been based on it. As a layperson, it is Baptism that makes me a member of a co-equal Estate of God's Realm along with deacons, priests, and bishops, and thus empowers me to participate in the governance of the Church. CWOB undermines the basis of our arguments for all the progress that our Church has made over the past 30 or 40 years and it sends out the logically untenable message that Baptism is both central and optional.

And just how inclusive is CWOB, anyway? There are so many things that canon law and the BCP require baptism for. An unbaptized person could receive the Eucharist at a given parish for years, yet he or she could not vote in parish elections or hold parish office because one has to be on the parish rolls to do so, and to be on the parish rolls, one has to be baptized. And let's say this person wants to get married to someone who is also unbaptized. That marriage could not take place in church because the BCP requires at least one of the parties to a marriage to be baptized. So, despite whatever feelings of warmth and self-satisfaction may ensue from communing an unbaptized person, we are ultimately offering that person a false sense of welcome.

On a personal note, I have to say that the thought that CWOB may one day be canonically permissible disturbs me deeply. If canon law were changed to allow it in any way, I wouldn't think that this Church has forfeited the right to call itself Christian, but I would cease to take it seriously as an expression of the catholic faith. I wouldn't join another Church, but I woud find other things to do with my time on Sunday morning.

Douglas Hayes

There are many, many points on which to object to ...

2008-05-06T18:01:00.000-07:00

There are many, many points on which to object to what these EfMers are saying in favor of Communion without Baptism (CWOB). But my intitial response is to find myself catching my breath at how quickly and easily they are willing to completely dismiss the faith, practice, and witness of the early Church - the same early Church, BTW, which gave us the scriptures and the sacraments in the first place, and which has, historically, been formative for Anglicanism generally and for the Episcopal Church in particular (note, for example, the rationale for many of the revisions in the 1979 BCP, including especially the rite for Holy Baptism).

How sad when we use what they gave us against them, as though we now know better than they did.

I don't mean to overpersonalize this, but I don't know how else to say it: this strikes me as a severe case of hubris.

The issue is NOT about choosing in favor of legalism versus grace. This IS about whether or not we are going to continue being faithful to our identity as Episcopalians (i.e., heirs of the catholic tradition). So it's not as simple as adhering to vs. breaking canons, as though everything would be okay if the canons said that the unbaptized may receive communion. At bottom, this is about what it means to be the Church, the Body of Christ. This is an ecclesiological issue first and foremost, and secondarily (at best) a matter of evangelism and welcoming.

If we take away Baptism as the sacramental foundation of the Church, then the Episcopal Church sells out to being just another lifestyle enclave among a plurality of competing options within a consumer culture.