The Lead

Sharing communion without first baptizing a person is a small but common practice in the Episcopal Church right now. There's been a great deal of discussion on the question here on the Episcopal Café over the past few years.

(You can read an essay from 2007 here, and a series of three essays posted last year beginning with Part 1, and then Part 2 and Part 3.) These discussions generate more comments than any other subject on the Café. And now some of the ideas being discussed are going to be voted on at General Convention this summer.

The Diocese of Eastern Oregon has proposed a resolution that would remove any bar to anyone receiving Holy Eucharist. But it's not the only one.

"[There are] two resolutions on this topic [that] convention will consider when it meets July 4-12 in Indianapolis. The Diocese of North Carolina has proposed a longer-term look at the issue. Resolution C029 calls for a special commission to conduct ‘a study of the theology underlying access to Holy Baptism and Holy Communion’ and recommend to the 78th General Convention any amendment to Canon 1.17.7 it believes is needed.
The texts of both resolutions are available here. Eastern Oregon’s is accompanied by a diocesan statement explaining its stance.

This will be the second time in recent years that what is variously called open communion, open table and communion of the non- or unbaptized has come to convention. In 2006, the General Convention affirmed Canon 1.17.7 (via Resolution D084) and asked for the House of Bishops Committee on Theology and the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to provide to the 2009 meeting of convention ‘a pastoral and theological understanding of the relationship between Holy Baptism and eucharistic practice.’"

Mary Frances Schjonberg has collected a huge compendium of resources in an article posted on the Episcopal News Service this afternoon. It turns out that this controversy has been discussed to one degree or another since at least 1982 in the Episcopal Church. The discussion in church history goes all the way back to Didache, written in the first centuries of the Church's life.

Schjonberg's article contains links to all the original Episcopal Church material such as previous resolutions, Ecumenical statements and position papers.

You can find the whole history of the Episcopal Church's Communion without baptism discussion here. If you're preparing for General Convention, this is some must reading.

Comments (8)

Also note that the Spring 2012 issue of The Anglican Theological Review contains essays by Rev. Ruth Meyers, Rev. Donald Schell, and Bp. Thomas Briedenthal on the issue as well.

Posted by David Sibley | May 15, 2012 10:37 PM

This is the last discussion we need to have as a church right now. How about survival??

Posted by Nicole Porter | May 15, 2012 10:38 PM

Nicole, I think it is part of the bigger problem,though. TEC needs to change and to let people know what kind of a church it is if anyone is going to be interested in joining it. Around here it's seen as the local UU church, believe what you want, do what you want. Rules? Don't be silly. Does TEC want to be the church where anything goes-no baptism or anything required-or do they want to actually try to be/do what they claim to believe? Making CWOB acceptable makes baptism seem irrelevant. The money problems in the budget just seem to magnify the fact that TEC doesn't know where it's going or how to get there.

Chris Harwood

Posted by Chris H. | May 16, 2012 8:44 AM

I would agree with Chris--I see this as a survival matter. Some proponents of CWOB believe that it is a form of evangelism because it enables us to be completely open to all. I don't see it that way. Instead, I see it as an excuse to *not* do evangelism because evangelism involves talking with people, engaging their questions, and explaining why we do some things and not other things. For instance, we believe that Baptism comes first for a reason. If someone is truly desperate for the Eucharist then they'll likely *want* to know that there's more to it than just receiving bread and wine.

CWOB practiced as a simple "y'all come to the table" short-circuits those conversations about belief, meaning, and faith.

Posted by Derek Olsen | May 16, 2012 9:17 AM

I think that the survival question and the CWOB question are broadly related. I don't think we'd be considering CWOB so seriously if the church didn't seem to be in such a perilous state attendance- and other-wise.

For me, the CWOB issue is about a lot more than liturgical theology. I think the presence of this debate at this point in the life of the church says a lot about where we are at in the church but I wrote about that elsewhere.

-Jesse

Posted by Jesse Zink | May 16, 2012 11:32 AM

"If you're preparing for General Convention, this is some must reading."

Or maybe if you're suffering from insomnia...

Posted by Dave Paisley | May 16, 2012 4:06 PM

I agree with Derek. The sacraments shouldn't be made into an "inclusion gimmick".

Posted by Nicole Porter | May 16, 2012 4:55 PM

Dean Knisely, I saw you at the Walkabout last week, and wished you'd gotten a question about CWOB in the group I was part of...

Posted by Bill Dilworth | May 16, 2012 9:46 PM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

CATEGORIES

Organizations