"Open Communion" is a less than helpful term for the practice of communing the unbaptized, whatever your position on that question. "Open Communion" has historically been defined as communing baptized Christians who are not a part of your denomination—a policy that is still rather open and beautiful as it is not the policy of the majority of Christians in the world. Communing the unbaptized (or "Communion without Baptism") is a relatively new concept in the life of the church. That doesn't mean it's automatically bad... just that it is still an idea that is being tested and discerned.

...And, of course, though he may have company among some members and clergy of the Episcopal Church, our own church's official policy remains that one must be baptized to receive communion.

There is a very healthy and credible discussion presently unfolding about this very subject. The good folks from Saint Gregory's in San Francisco have led the way and weighed in with some challenging thoughts for the rest of us who may have not considered some other views. Our present policy would disqualify most of the folks Jesus fed as well as the apostles and companions of Jesus, besides "even the dogs get the crumbs that fall from the master's table." That is not to be glib, but to underline that this is not a simple matter of a rule that will fit in every situation and we should not quickly dismiss the possibility that God is inviting us to re-visit our assumptions. It may be possible that there are times when God leads to the font via the table and not the other way around. I think it would be wise to at least acknowledge that possibility.

As another commenter mentioned, our church's policy is that Communion is open to any baptized Christians - but I haven't yet met a priest who's asked.

I think that baptism may be becoming less a central tenet of being a Christian among younger Christians. Certainly when I was an Evangelical (albeit Evangelical Methodist), conversions as adults were commonplace and there wasn't much pressure to get baptized; the pressure was to accept Jesus into your life.

Personally, I think Communion should be open to all who seek it, regardless of whether they've been baptized (or, frankly, of their religion). I realize that UCCJ has canons and traditions that it must live by, but to an outsider, this firing will most likely seem un-Christian.

Thanks everyone for all of your comments. It is clear to me now that I made an assumption that people reading would know that the official policy of the church is "any baptized person.". That was my mistake and I have corrected it in the article.

I did not intend to use this article to discuss what the church should do with communion, but to point out the action of a church towards a clergy person who does what many in our church do.

It is worth mentioning that with the words "open communion", the prevailing understanding of this in society are churches that includes anyone who wants it, including the non-baptized. While it may be true that this is a change from past understanding, see what happens in a web search of "open communion" (even add the word "Episcopal"). Check out the Wikipedia definition. If you told people that by "open communion" you meant giving communion to all baptized persons, I think it is accurate to say that many church goers (and most outside of the church) would not call that "open".

Kurt Wiesner

It goes without saying, but it may be helpful to bring it forward: the question of administering Holy Communion to the unbaptized is less a question of policy than of sacramental theology. The example of Jesus is interesting, of course, but Jesus seems not to have baptized at all.

If we accept the proposition that Jesus did direct his followers to baptize people subsequent to his resurrection, then we accept that Christian baptism is an apostolic practice, not a practice of Jesus, himself.

All that aside, it seems to me that concerns remain about what the Church is communicating to people collectively, within and outside the Church, about the intentionality of their participation in the life of God in Christ via the sacrament of Holy Communion and in the organic body of Christ as it is manifest in the fellowship of the Church. When Holy Communion is understood and/or taught as a memorial action recalling an event that occurred 2000 years ago, the outward and visible sign is largely, if not exclusively, the intention. Where the sacrament's inward and invisible mystery is the intention, then it seems that responsible stewardship of people's appreciation generally and collectively of the sacrament of Holy Communion and of Holy Baptism will compel the Church to be careful to avoid treating the sacraments either as sentimental memorial acts or as superstitions.

If we accept that Holy Communion is the manifest mystery of the Church's collective intention to participate in the Christ at the invitation of God, then distribution of Holy Communion to persons who have not enjoyed the opportunity to learn more about it either by example of family and friends or by instruction through catechesis are deprived of the opportunity to learn the intention of the Church collectively and to discern their own intention personally.

If it is supposed that such learning or discernment or unimportant, then, if Holy Communion is yet supposed to be somehow spiritually effective beyond being just an example of a congregation's or a Church's hospitality, then on wonders what would prevent us from simply dropping containers of sanctified bread and wine over a large metropolitan area and convincing ourselves that somehow we had effected a sacramental blessing.

Where the distribution of Holy Communion is treated primarily or exclusively as an expression of Christ's hospitality and/or our own, one wonders if the Church or congregation wouldn't do better to pay attention to hospitality where hospitality can be expressed not merely symbolically, but where it needs to be expressed actually and really.

I'm wondering if a developed theology of sacrament is being overlooked here in favor of a well-intentioned sentiment and a convenient aesthetic. I suggest that much remains to be done here before altering a practice and policy whose theology of mystery is a uniquely meaningful characteristic of the Episcopal Church.

Kurt, there is no doubt that the usage in terminology has shifted somewhat, but "open communion" still means something else in ecumenical circles, and to those churches where the debate is between open and "close" communion.

The real issue isn't how open communion is, but whether baptism is required. Requiring baptism doesn't "close" communion, any more than the older Anglican tradition of requiring Confirmation. The issue is the order in which one participates, and using "open communion" instead of "communion before baptism" seems to me to shift the discussion away from the real issue, which is the traditional understanding that one becomes a member of a body before celebrating ones membership in it.

I also wonder just how common the practice is in the Episcopal Church -- at least as a deliberate intentional choice. I don't know if a survey has ever been conducted, but in my travels most churches I attend use some form of "All who are baptized are welcome to receive communion" as a standard announcement. Does anyone have access to hard data on this question?

"...in ecumenical circles, and to those churches where the debate is between open and "close" communion."

I will grant you that Tobias, but will again mention when you look at recent articles even within the Episcopal Church, the debate concerning "open" communion is around baptism, and that is the term being used.
The following is the biggest hit examples from Goggle:

http://www.ecusa.anglican.org/80050_89696_ENG_HTM.htm

http://www.trinitylewiston.episcopalmaine.org/Rector's%20Letters/open-communion.html

http://www.anglicantheologicalreview.org/static/pdf/articles/86.3_tanner.pdf

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/10/19/who_is_worthy_to_receive/

Kurt,

I concur in your sense of what the phrase "open communion" has come to mean, and Tobias, agree that this commonplace use seems to imply an unfortunate judgment (or at least implication) that communion invitations to "all baptized Christians" are "closed."

As pastor of the congregation that seems to have begun this practice in the Episcopal Church, I've discovered (along with others) that in common use "open communion" means an invitation to all to receive.

and Tobias,

I appreciate your phrase "communion before baptism," and much prefer it to "communion without baptism." To my ear at least, "before" doesn't imply an intention to sever the pastoral or formational connection between the two sacraments, but only to address the question of the baptismal requirement.

And in the broadest strokes, what I'd say we're talking about is communicating the unprepared (all of us). An assumption has grown up that the liturgy is a sequence of events to make us ready to receive communion. When we follow Jesus' command to 'do this' and make the meal he kept with disciples and notorious sinners (even at the Last Supper, the Gospels make the point that Judas the betrayer was present to share in the Body and Blood), it matters to US to recall that every liturgy brings us to the moment of crisis - will we join Jesus' in a communion identification with all humanity including those we might be inclined to judge unprepared or unworthy? Might we gratefully acknowledge that the welcome to the unprepared, the shocking declaration of God's unstoppable, reconciling love is Good News to us too?

God makes the sinless one into sin (St. Paul says) so that in him, we might become the righteousness of God. Will we accept God's love on the terms of God's unreserved love for the those we know are unprepared, unready, and may perhaps be unworthy? And if not, if it's preparation and readiness and worthiness we're counting on, is it more than vanity and folly for anyone to receive?

When we begin to see what Jesus does making himself the friend of sinners, of no reputation, accused of actually liking sinners and being a drunkard and a glutton, the baptism that concludes his ministry, his complete communion in death with accursed sinners gives our baptism "into his death" a starker and more grace-filled meaning than we'd hoped for. God who loves all humanity without reservation welcomes us as the church washes from us everything that distinguishes us from any other God-beloved sinner. Being baptized into Christ, we are clothed in his kenosis, his emptying of himself. Suddenly his command to love the enemy becomes clear. God's reconciliation comes to life in us as we love into a divine, costly love that has no enemies and no outsiders.

I personally am not convinced either way. As one under authority, I follow the ancient canon, and the canon of this Church, and I invite anyone who is baptized to receive the Body and Blood of Christ. I don't ask unless there is a small child whom I don't already know. Then I ask the parents.

At the same time, I do think that the practice of whatever-one-calls-it calls or should to attention what exactly Baptism is all about anyway. Is it needed for salvation? No. Neither is Eucharist. Is it a sure and certain means of that salvation? Yes. I don't need to recite the Prayer over the water to remind us what it means. However, one insight I gained recently is this: at the Communion I say to the recipient: "The Body of Christ, the Bread of Heaven." I am actually doing *two* things at that moment. First, I am announcing that the Elements are that the person is about to receive. Second, and equally as important, I am reminding the recipient and me who exactly who, or rather what, that person is: a member of the Body of Christ. Now that only comes through Baptism, which is what makes us members of the Body in the first place. therefore I have to wonder about Paul's admonition to receive worthily. I believe he's speaking at least as much about the Body of Christ which is the gathered community as much as the Bread and the Cup. So we need, I think, to really reclaim Baptism for it is as a parallel investigation of what it means to open the Table.

Advent Blessings continue!

Bob

" Will we accept God's love on the terms of God's unreserved love for the those we know are unprepared, unready, and may perhaps be unworthy? And if not, if it's preparation and readiness and worthiness we're counting on, is it more than vanity and folly for anyone to receive?"

Wherever did anybody here say anything about "unworthiness"? Nobody that I can see. It's a strawman in this discussion.

But of course, Episcopalians (along with other Anglicans) used to openly acknowledge our own unworthiness in the "Prayer of Humble Access" said right before Communion. In Rite I, this prayer is still sometimes used, in fact - and the Catholic Church still does (in recently changed wording).

We judged ourselves to be "unworthy," even though baptized. So why make out that opposing CWOB is some sort of value judgement on others? That's not the issue at all.

The invitation at communion states: "The gifts of God for the People of God." That leaves a great deal of wiggle room for God's people and God to work it out. Whenever possible, I try to allow myself to trust that they will.

"However, one insight I gained recently is this: at the Communion I say to the recipient: 'The Body of Christ, the Bread of Heaven.'"

Robert Solon makes a good point above.

And here's what this looks like from the other side of the rail, BTW. The BCP has this, at this point in the service:

"The Bread and the Cup are given to the communicants with these words

The Body (Blood) of our Lord Jesus Christ keep you in
everlasting life. [Amen.]

or with these words

The Body of Christ, the bread of heaven. [Amen.]
The Blood of Christ, the cup of salvation. [Amen]."

IOW, the recipient is to respond "Amen" to a theological statement by the person giving Communion. (I've seen this instruction actually written out in an "instructed Eucharist.")

"Amen" means: "Yes, so be it." It's a statement of agreement with what's gone before.

In other words: the recipient is being asked to agree with rather complicated theological propositions, on the basis of....nothing.

Not exactly a friendly sort of thing, in my opinion.

(Sorry, hit "Submit" instead of "Preview"!

Obviously, I meant to say that "In other words: in CWOB, the recipient is being asked to agree with rather complicated theological propositions, on the basis of....nothing."

And this is just not on, in my opinion. I know I wouldn't participate in the central rite of another religious faith - and particularly not when I'd be expected to reply in the affirmative to whatever's said by the religious authorities....)

Yes, BSnyder (I don't know your full name.) It seems to me incredibly IN-hospitable to invite people of other religious traditions to commune, thereby making the theological affirmations you explain. It suggests that we don't take their religious commitments - or doubts & questions, as the case may be - very seriously.

As is often the case, this is an interesting discussion. But what it shows me is that there is far too much going on in these rites, and the theology behind them, to look for an easy answer based on a single view. For instance, a major question has to be about what Baptism is. The language about "sin" and "unworthiness" in the discussion above is part of the problem: is Christian baptism (and the eucharist) about sin? Or are they primarily about initiation and communion in the body into which initiated? Both rites have borne this double symbolic burden and part of the current debate is about how to sort these elements out in a meaningful symbolic way. For me the sequence remains obvious, even were it not canonical, and I don't primarily see either Sacrament in terms of "sin" but in terms of the community -- into which one enters, and which one then celebrates. This is a more "Eastern" understanding than the Western view, promulgated by Augustine and his adherents (i.e., Cranmer!), who see the world as drenched with sin. I don't think we find that the emphasis of the scant biblical records around Christian baptism (not that of John) or the Eucharist. Baptism seems more associated with new beginnings and the Holy Spirit, and the Eucharist with a celebration of this new "marriage" which is the Church (where the many become one).

I also resonate with BSnyder's point about, well, just what are we doing here. What does it mean for a person who is not a member of the Body of Christ to receive something symbolic (and a Sacrament of) that Body? What does that Amen mean? "Thank you"?

My wife doesn't consider herself a practicing Christian. She receives Communion when we go to church. She participates in the full service. She knows that Amen means let it be so.

I don't know how this discussion of non-Christians receiving Communion came about other than my sidebar mention. The position I take is that Communion means to the recipient whatever it means. As long as a recipient is respectful, I would have them participate if they decide it would have meaning for them. Jesus was, at a minimum, a great teacher and a great prophet in the line of the prophets of Israel. Non-Christians participating in a Christian service have to be aware that they aren't required to indicate assent to every theological proposition in the service - my wife doesn't do the Nicene Creed, for example (and frankly, I'm on the fence about the Creed myself).

As to open vs closed Communion among Christians, I'd repeat and amplify my main concern: historically, the mainline denominations have maintained membership through descent, with kids getting baptized. However, there are an awful lot of un-Churched young adults around today. Some of them may just decide to come into church. After leaving Evangelicism, I just wandered into an Episcopal church. Now, I was baptized, but the tradition I came from didn't place the strongest emphasis on baptism for membership. I can easily foresee a situation where someone hasn't been baptized but considers themselves either a Christian, or leaning towards Jesus' teachings to some degree, and they walk into a church. If I were a minister, I would not turn that person away regardless of our church's present canon laws.

Churches need to adapt to changing societal norms where applicable, and the importance of baptism is one such norm. Doing open Communion in the lay sense of the word seems to me to be a sensible adaptation. I see no reason that baptism and Communion are theologically inseverable.

"I don't know how this discussion of non-Christians receiving Communion came about other than my sidebar mention."

It's the topic of this post; see the first sentence above.

Weiwen Ng writes:

"Churches need to adapt to changing societal norms where applicable, and the importance of baptism is one such norm. Doing open Communion in the lay sense of the word seems to me to be a sensible adaptation. I see no reason that baptism and Communion are theologically inseverable."

I think that proves my point. In a way, this is more about Baptism than Communion. I understand the evangelical churches to have in general a far less sacramental (for want of a better word) view of the Sacraments. That is, they aren't understood to be actual means of grace that actually effect what they signify. Zwingli, from whom many in the Reformed branch descend theologically, considered that nothing actually happened. Others, such as Anglicans, RCs, Orthodox, and I believe most Lutherans, hold different views. A "high" view of Baptism would hold that something actually happens to the candidate at baptism - one is changed, grace is imparted, and it is far more than a mere recognition of what God already does. And so one who is baptized is indeed ontologically different from one who is not. Those who do not hold this view would reasonably be confused as to why an unbaptized person couldn't receive the Body and Blood. So it seems to me we have to continue to recover what Baptism is and what it does if we really want to get really deeply into the proposal of CBeB (Communion Before Baptism).

Bob

BTW, I think you're kind of missing the point here.

It's on us to ensure that non-Christians aren't put in the position to compromise their own beliefs. It's our responsibility to make sure we're not doing anything that's the least bit manipulative or untoward in any way, or anything that puts people in any sort of awkward position. This is about our ethics, and about how we act.

Another point to be made here is that CWOB is a breaking of the rules that the church as a whole - including, importantly, the laity - has decided upon together. Priests are under authority to obey the canons, by their own ordination vows. This is one way, I assume (among a number of others), that the Episcopal Church is different from Evangelical Churches.

(Apologies - my last comment was directed to Weiwen Ng.)

Donald,

I sincerely wish that we could refer to this practice as "Communion Before Baptism" rather than "Communion Without Baptism" but I'm just not seeing it. There may be a few places where the unbaptized are noticed and shepherded towards commitment, discipleship, and baptism, but most of the places that I've seen it on offer, no such concern occurs. As a result, it remains simply "Communion without Baptism" and calling it something other than that is disingenuous.

Bob - that doesn't actually explain anything. I can easily imagine a situation where one has a 'high' view of Baptism, treating it as a Sacrament, and still not view it as essential to receive Communion. My last priest was pretty high church, and he still invited everyone to come forth for Communion regardless. And he was well aware that not all the attendees considered themselves Christian at the time.

You need to explain why we cannot hold that Baptism is a sacrament that changes a person, and that it's still irrelevant towards whether or not one receives Communion. I think that we can treat Baptism this way. Furthermore, I think that we should do so, because a) it's not a hundred percent clear from Scripture that Baptism is required of Christians, b) even though this has been church tradition, we're gradually starting to change the practice, likely in response to conditions on the ground and c) I don't want to see this church become what the new Bishop of Washington called a boutique church, too busy looking in and not looking out.

BSnyder - a couple of things. On non-Christians receiving Communion, I repeat, the original post said that the UCCJ pastor got fired because he gave Communion to people who were not baptized. In my opinion, baptism should NOT be conflated with being Christian. I certainly was a Christian for several years before being baptized. I suspect that for an unchurched adult who eventually starts coming in to church, they might also consider themselves a Christian before they get baptized.

To your point about it being on us to ensure that non-Christians participating in a service don't compromise their own values to be there - I'd agree and disagree. I agree we have the responsibility to make sure our core worship isn't offensive to others. We should not say anything that denigrates other religions, or people of no religion. At the same time, we're Christians. At the same time, if a non-Christian steps into one of our worship services for whatever reason, they've got every right to not participate fully in the worship so long as they're respectful. They'll need to make their own judgments about what they can and cannot assent to. Or they can judge that perhaps it's best to talk to us after worship hours.

Also, I'm fully aware that our priests are required to obey the canons. The problem is that a significant number of them don't obey the canons about who can receive Communion, and nobody seems inclined to discipline most of them for it. In my opinion, this particular canon is wrong. I've said why I think it should be changed.

And if I were inclined to get this canon enforced, I'm not sure I would be comfortable turning my priest in. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable if some people in the congregations I've been in would be excluded from Communion - after all, that's a sacrament also, and I think it makes an ontological change in a recipient. I want to share that change with all who would have it, and that's another reason I think we should change the rules.

"BSnyder - a couple of things. On non-Christians receiving Communion, I repeat, the original post said that the UCCJ pastor got fired because he gave Communion to people who were not baptized. In my opinion, baptism should NOT be conflated with being Christian."

Well, you are right, actually, since we always need to consider the Quakers when discussing these issues, in any case.

(Still, in our church the two things ARE conflated! Self-definition just doesn't enter into it; you become a Christian by getting baptized.)

They'll need to make their own judgments about what they can and cannot assent to. Or they can judge that perhaps it's best to talk to us after worship hours.

Except that they've already been invited to Communion, and may have absolutely no idea what that entails. That's the whole point, and those are the people we need to consider, not those who may consider themselves Christian (or who may be Quakers). This is based on exactly what you're saying, in fact: because Christendom is over, people may have no idea at all about what's involved in Communion. We should NOT be inviting people to participate in something they don't know anything about; that's wrong on about a dozen levels, and in almost any context - but particularly in the context of worship, IMO.

If we want to change the rules, then we should change the rules - after having a nice long discussion churchwide about it. Neither you nor I - nor any individual priest - gets to decide these things on our own. If we wanted to do it that way, we should all simply go someplace where that's the procedure. There are plenty of churches around like that - and also, in fact, plenty where this is not an issue at all, because they don't celebrate Communion every week, and maybe never.

BTW, if you want people to experience "ontological change" via a Sacrament: what's wrong with Baptism? (Sorry, but you walked right into that one! ;-) )

PS - any priests here, what would you do if someone came to the altar for Communion who you knew 1) wasn't baptized but considered herself a Christian or 2) wasn't a Christian?

FWIW, I attended a very large parish in midtown Manhattan. Our clergy always, during the mid-service announcements and before the offertory, said something to the effect of: "We believe that this table is not ours; it is God's, and the gift given is that of God. We therefore welcome anyone who feels called to come forward. If you are not yet baptized and feel yourself coming more, please talk to any of the clergy, for we would love to speak with you about our shared faith." I had some issues at first, but I realized that it truly provided a path for some people to become Christians, because some who did first commune found themselves growing in faith and became baptized.

Did I agree with this? I'm still not sure. Did I serve the chalice to people at the altar whom I knew to be, say, Jewish? Yes. I trusted that God would sort out those issues. To my knowledge, either no one has reported the priests (all seven or so) for violating canons, or either the bishop chose not to take action. And I believe the bishops have heard the altar invitations during their annual visits, anyway.

Just throwing that out there.

BSnyder - I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with Baptism. It's a lovely Sacrament. I was slightly indifferent about my own Baptism, but every time we renew our Baptismal vows in church, I feel like it's a life-changing event. Certainly all Episcopalians should get baptized at some point in their lives.

My problem is 1) with those who think that you can't be a Christian without being baptized and 2) with the practice, where it exists, of excluding people who want to experience Communion based solely on their Baptismal status. Like I said, 1 isn't true in practice these days. If TEC's policy is that you're not a Christian until you're baptized, I think that's wrong-headed.

I guess I think that Baptism makes you a Christian, and taking Communion means that you're a follower of Christ. The two are usually conflated - but not always. To me, the folks who are or who may be in transition to being a Christian are the first group I'm worrying about. The second group I'm worried about are those who won't ever become a Christian, but who want to commune with Christ in whatever way they and He have worked out. Maybe group 2 is smaller, but they'd still be welcome in my church.

Again, to your point about inadvertently coercing people by inviting them to participate in something they don't know about, I'm a former Evangelical for a reason. I detest coercion and deception. However, I still disagree with your point. Non-Christians in church are going to have to think about this for themselves and manage this. However they change as a result of Eucharist or the worship, if they change at all, is between them and God. I'm not sure if you're assuming that Communion necessarily changes one to become a Christian - what if that's not God's plan? I would manage that by explaining as best I could and leaving the rest to God and to whoever's there.

One important thing about Baptism, Weiwen Ng, is that by definition - see the story of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch - the process offers both instruction in the faith, and a public declaration of intention to take the step of commitment to Christian faith and to becoming part of the church. People can change their minds, too, and after the period of instruction decide that Christianity is not for them; the point is: it's their decision, and it's all open and aboveboard. This clarity is very important, IMO; it says that we will answer people's questions as best we can, and as honestly. We will tell them everything we know, if we can; we will hold nothing back. People will not be manipulated in any way; they will decide for themselves, and can do so publicly. We are saying: we will not engage in mystification; the Church can be trusted to be aboveboard, and to ensure that people do not compromise themselves.

In this way, people have already assented, at Baptism, to the theological assertions that happen at Communion, and they can say "Amen" to them without any reservation - or any "appearance of impropriety." Consider, too: Christ himself was baptized at the start of his ministry - so there really might be something to this pattern.

(And tell me truly: would you actually partake in some other faith's primary ritual, knowing little or nothing about what you were agreeing to during the course of it? I can't imagine, really, that anybody would do that - but perhaps I'm wrong about that.)

I think what we need above all in the Episcopal Church is clarity. It simply isn't true that we can intuit what the Christian religion is all about by sitting in the pews and experiencing the liturgy. CWOB seems to me to be an exercise in mystification - so I call for clarity, instead, and more teaching about the faith.

(And FWIW, since I've seen this quote here a couple of times lately: there's no evidence at all that St. Francis said "Preach the Gospel always; use words if necessary." And if he did: well, as a mendicant friar and evangelical preacher himself, he didn't even take his own advice. So yes, I'm for preaching the Gospel, using words, too; that's how the faith was spread to begin with, after all. The Word is a very, very important idea in the Judeo-Christian tradition - so I say we should be sure to use words, often, to explain our thinking. Give other people the chance to weigh everything in their minds and hearts, instead of having to guess about things.)

BSnyder - I read Kathryn Tanner's article. She states things much better than I can, as I'm not a theologian, but my reading of her point is that the disciples clearly had no idea what they were getting into during the Last Supper. Infants who are baptized can take Communion, but they aren't truly able to understand Communion and to assent to the theological assertions during Eucharist (for that matter, they can't truly assent to their Baptismal vows). And baptized Christians from non-sacramental denominations also wouldn't understand what they were getting into if they went to Communion in an Episcopal church. And can we really say that all Christians in all denominations throughout the ages have fully assented to all the theological propositions made during Eucharist? Perhaps, then, we shouldn't overemphasize assent in this case. Furthermore, Tanner asserts that Communion itself can enhance understanding and potentially lead to Baptism - I agree. I don't think it should matter which direction Christians take in this regard.

Besides that, again, the Disciples weren't recorded as being baptized, iirc. This would be consistent with Baptism being great but not vital for Communion or for participation in the church. Besides that, as I said, if tradition does not work given changed circumstances then it should be reconsidered. I gave reasons why the tradition doesn't necessarily work, and Tanner gave pretty similar ones.

Would I be willing to participate fully in another denomination's rituals? This is getting sidetracked fro the original discussion, imo. But because you asked: I've observed respectfully at a Muslim prayer service. Back home in Singapore, many Chinese burn incense at the altars of their dead relatives, an act which is understood as worship; I used to not do so on grounds of idolatry, and these days, I would consider doing so on the grounds that I would be showing respect. I've participated fully in a couple of UU services with a full understanding of what I was getting into. I'm a Christian and I have every intent of staying that way. While I have a desire to learn about other religions, I most likely would not participate in a core non-Christian ritual at this time. But my willingness to do so or not to do so isn't relevant, I think. If there are non-religious folks who aren't baptized but who are leaning towards Christianity, and if they're in church, I'd say let them take Communion. If there are folks of other religions who feel like they're called to take Communion, and that that wouldn't compromise their integrity, they should do so, too. That's between them and God. Just as whether I participate or not in another ritual of any sort is between me and God.

Tobias,

I appreciate your raising these questions:

"The language about "sin" and "unworthiness" in the discussion above is part of the problem: is Christian baptism (and the eucharist) about sin? Or are they primarily about initiation and communion in the body into which initiated?"

I think I'm the one who introduced language like "sin" and "unworthy" and the language does pull in the direction of the centuries-long church habits of speech and thought. Yes, I agree, these have been distorting words. But I bring them back in because I don't know how else to talk about Jesus' prophetic teaching work.

I'm not talking about "sin" as what keeps us apart from God and not talking about Jesus' work in the framework of a substitutionary sacrifice. Our opinions about sin (and innocence and right thinking) may blind us to what God is doing.

The Gospels and St. Paul make it central to the Good News of Jesus that God has overturned OUR alienating and manipulating constructs of "sin" and "worthy/unworthy" and the cleansing and preparation games we play to make ourselves "worthy" or "prepared" or "ready" for God. But it's not "I'm okay, you're okay," but, as Will Campbell once framed it, "We're all bastards and God loves us anyway."

I'm just now re-reading Deuteronomy and noticing where this later version of the Law gets the irony of insider/outsider language or worthy/unworthy language or pure/impure language exactly right and where instead Deuteronomy holds to the received assumption that people God claims to love have got to get everything right and keep everything pure to stay in God's good graces.

The prophets (and some of Deuteronomy) and most of the New Testament make "unworthy" or "sinner" or "sinful" titles we can claim with a smile. Irony shows up and stops us short when we put "Worthy is the lamb that was slain" alongside "God made the sinless one into sin," and "cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree?" God doesn't give a damn about our need to be reckoned worthy or right.

Starting from Jesus' meals where he refuses to differentiate between righteous and unrighteous and following on through his casting his lot to die with the worst of sinners "freely" (as patristic sources repeatedly insist) and for "the joy which was before him" (as the author of Hebrews puts it) we see Jesus diminishing the power of words like "worthy" or "righteous."

The death and resurrection of Jesus reveal the folly of our efforts to define any in group and make ourselves right with God when God's embrace knows no bounds. Yes, the question is who are the people of God. The question isn't a test of our generosity at including people and making them feel like 'one of us.' Jesus' answered the question dying for and with us outside the city gates.

Words like "unworthy" and "sinful" work if we ourselves embrace those words with the humility that knows we're speaking irony or at least dwelling on a "barrier" that God has rendered insignificant. The words helps us drop whatever we imagine separates us from other fallible, frightened, pride, stumbling people. They invite us to welcome news of God's presence in the lives of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. ANd none of this works if it's simply cool, liberal tolerance. James Alison's title "The Joy of Being Wrong" gets at some of this for me.

So how does it matter to us that Jesus' doing
- his enacted prophetic sign of the meal,
- his courage going to Jerusalem and preach publicly,
- his determination to face death to spare his friends and
- his willingness to die with the worst of us
is ALL DOING?

Jesus doesn't offer a rhetoric of persuasion. Instead he offers unexpected, rule-breaking action, modeling and joining with the action of the Father embracing everyone whose willing in any way to come into his embrace.

Through almost forty years of priesthood my understanding, thinking, hunch, and feeling about what it all means have been changing (and still is changing). I'm pretty sure that's true for any of us. Through countless small changes in my understanding of what we're doing together I've been in grateful communion with people whose understanding, thinking, etc. doesn't match mine at all.

I do think the big question, the staggering, unbalancing question isn't even about what we think receiving communion means or how Christ's Body is present among us and in bread and wine, or how we make sure people agree with us about what it means.

The steady question is how our DOING THIS together follows Jesus' doing.

BSnyder,

You ask:

"...would you actually partake in some other faith's primary ritual, knowing little or nothing about what you were agreeing to during the course of it?"

One response is that a clear invitation to communion should declare that we're offering Christ's Body and Blood in Bread and Wine (by which we may mean all kinds of different things, but it is what we say we're doing and what someone receiving will be participating in).

Another response is that I've happily participated in Jewish Passover liturgies and know I've got only a sliver of understanding of what all the Passover means to my Jewish friends who'd invited me.

Thank you, Donald, for this passionate articulation.

I see around the edges some of what concerns me in the "Cb4B" approach. That is what I've seen in some cases as edging over into warm fuzzy when what you lay out here is really far more challenging. I recall Annie Dillard's line about us all wearing crash helmets in worship.

I suppose what I'm saying is that Jesus offers a welcome, but it is not unconditional. It is in fact very challenging: He calls us to the cross as well as to the banquet. By focusing on the "washing from sin" element of baptism (thanks Augustine) perhaps we've lost sight of the fact that baptism represents the "dying with Christ" element -- it is the sacrament of commitment and self-gift reflecting his self-gift upon the cross -- that serves as the entry point prior to the banquet. It is because we have been Baptized into his death that we share in his resurrection.

"The end of sin is death" works two ways -- not just as the outcome or result, but the only way to escape the sin itself: to die with the one who died for sin, which death is manifest, and participated in, in the sacrament of baptism.

This is why I feel that baptism is so very important, and seems to have been lost sight of -- ironically in a time when we supposedly make more of it, including the Baptismal Covenant! So, in the long run, it seems to me your argument really moves us towards a re-emphasis on baptism, rather than trying to bring the initiatory element (part of a new life because dead to the old) into the Eucharist. Without that "death" I think we are not properly sharing the "life."

Weiwen Ng: My main point here is, again, that it's not about what anybody else does. You are right that everybody has their own relationship with God, and makes their own decisions. Neither of those things, though, is our business or under our control.

This is about us, and our religious services, and what we ask other people - either explicitly or implicitly - to do. It's about, in the long run, being able to trust the church not to pull a fast one on people unfamiliar with its faith - and it's about being careful not to violate peoples' boundaries.

IOW, we're not policing other people; we're policing ourselves.

And in my opinion, a quick announcement about "Body and Blood" before Communion is not in any way a substitute for instruction or education in the faith - instruction which is explicitly given prior to Baptism. I'm very tired, as I said above, of mystification.

We're not Jesus, and we're not disciples. We need to operate according to ethical standards; we don't get to break the rules whenever we feel like it, just because we don't happen like them. The rules are in place for a reason. They constrain us. And in any case, we have a procedure already in place to change the canons, if we want to do that. Is it really too much to ask that we follow our own rules? This isn't any sort of emergency that necessitates disobedience in order to save lives; it's people doing whatever they feel like, because they want to - and I think it's really that simple. IOW, it's the usual thing human beings do.

BTW, all this is not even having the professed desired effect. There hasn't been any uptick in membership (including Baptism, as far as I'm aware); the church in fact is smaller now than ever before - even after years of CWOB mania.

I used to sort of lean towards your position, actually, at least from time to time - but since then I've seen the "instructed Eucharists" I mentioned above - documents that apparently give no thought at all to the people they profess to be "including." They literally tell people in one breath to come to the altar for Communion "no matter what" - and then in the next, instruct them to verbally agree with whatever's said by the priest there! It's creepy, really. It's all very, very careless and unthinking - and so I'm firmly in the opposition camp now.

(P.S.: The story of Philip and the Ethiopian is, really, very beautiful.

"What is to prevent me from being baptized?" the man asked, excitedly. And the answer was then, and is now: nothing at all.

It's one of a number of New Testament stories that seem to lay out the relationship between the Scriptures, instruction, one-on-one discussion, a journey, and the Sacraments. In each one - the Road to Emmaus is another example - an individual takes time - it's implied quite a long time, in fact - to "open the Scriptures" to the subject of the story, and "their hearts burn." The Sacrament - the Baptism of the Ethiopian, the breaking of bread at Emmaus - follows immediately afterwards.

I find it very interesting, in fact, that in these cases - conversion stories, that is - individual attention during a journey together seems to be a key element....)

BSnyder - first, this has been a very productive thread overall. Second, about disclosure and knowledge, you do raise an excellent point, which did force me to rethink things.

My response to that contention is that I think we should remember that the Episcopal Church is a particular manifestation of the catholic church, but it is not the only valid one. I think that we should have as much interoperability between churches as possible. To inter-operate with Evangelicals who may not have been baptized, we should do open Communion (in the lay sense).

Additionally, I would argue that your position underestimates the interaction between individuals and Christ. The Episcopal Church is a mediator of that interaction. But it's not the only one. For that matter, I do not think the universal church is the sole mediator between individuals and Christ. You raise a good point that we do not want to deceive folks who are new to our Church. However, I think that's best handled by the service. Invite all who are willing to come forward, and let them sort it out with Jesus. If they've decided to step forward ... then trust them and trust God. I do not think we should presume that they do not have the understanding necessary. The disciples, after all (who we don't know were Baptized, don't forget!) had no damn clue what they were getting into. God led them into a full understanding. I also don't think we should presume our understanding of Communion, of Jesus, or of God is so airtight.

As to rules, I agree that they are what we live by, and that they should be obeyed unless there is clear and good reason not to. And that if there's sufficient reason, they should be changed. I would find it perfectly acceptable if we decided that whether or not to restrict Communion to the baptized should be left to the priest's discretion, in consultation with the congregation. If so many congregations and priests have discerned that this canon should not be followed, though, that tells you something. Anyway, if we survived the same sex marriage and ordaining LGBT clergy thing, I'm sure we can resolve this one.

Weiwen Ng: sorry, can't agree with you. The more I think about it, the more I realize that CWOB ("Communion without Baptism," is what I mean here) is a really, really bad idea. And the things I've seen actually happening I think frankly cross the line into being unethical. I don't want to be associated with it, frankly, or with the completely clueless actions (as I've described on this thread) of at least some people as they put it into practice. This is my church, too, and I'm going to insist that it act ethically and with some concern for the people involved.

I'm not sure what objections Evangelicals could possibly have to being baptized, but surely they are aware of its significance. It's big-time Biblical - part of the Great Commission and often a topic in New Testament writings. They already know the ropes, and can avail themselves of the rite any time they wish. Frankly, I can't understand why anybody who considers themselves Christian would have even the slightest issue with baptism (with the exception of the Quakers), so I'm not really very concerned about that.

(BTW, when I returned to the church after 35+ years away, I sat in my seat during Communion for almost two years. I didn't believe in it, so I didn't partake in it, although I had been baptized as an infant. Catholics sometimes come to our services just for worship, and don't go for Communion. It's really not that big a deal.)

I'm concerned about people who may not have the first clue what Christianity is about - and the fact that we don't bother to tell them anything before getting them involved in a religious rite they probably know nothing about (and, God help us, telling them what to say during that rite). It's idiotic - and BTW, there are no standards involved at all. These people may simply be left to swing in the wind after the service, with no support or anybody to talk to about it at all. I mean, one of the justifications given for CWOB right here on this thread is that is that Jesus does "unexpected, rulebreaking" things, and there are "staggering, unbalancing" questions involved. My question is: what happens if all that "unexpected, staggering, unbalancing" stuff happens to somebody who's just come in through the doors and has no background or support with which to process it?

Your answer is, trust Jesus, and let the person work it out with him. But I believe God works through people - and I've been taught (and believe) that it's actually dangerous to try to go it alone in spiritual matters. We have a responsibility to people, IOW, and I don't see it being discharged.

At least the disciples had Jesus to talk with, for three years. There isn't any procedure in place under CWOB to deal with what actually happens to people, or to give them any support, because CWOB is a rogue movement.

I just have no more patience with, or respect for, rogue movements in the church anymore (particularly ones that have pastoral implications) - especially since our church has a democratic process in which to work these things out. The governing body, made up of bishops, priests, and laypeople, meets every three years. And that governing body has decided not to change the canon. That tells me something.

I do have respect, though, for parishes and priests who obey the canons because they promised to, even though they may not like what's happened.

Yes, it really can happen that way. Imagine that....

Well, thanks for talking it out with me, and for letting me rant a little! I agree with you it's been a productive discussion

"Open communion (communion without baptism) is the official policy of many denominations including the Presbyterian, UCC, and United Methodist Church."

Not quite. It is the official policy of the UMC. The UCC policy seems to be left up to the individual congregation - hardly surprising for a congregationalist body. And at least the Presbyterian Church (USA) policy seems to be that Baptism is a requirement for admittance to Holy Communion: http://gamc.pcusa.org/ministries/today/sacraments/
I doubt seriously that the several other, more conservative Presbyterian groups practice CWOB.