Glad news! Thanks, Eastern Oregon!

“We know from our strivings within ecumenism and mission that the communion Christ intended for all is perilous and difficult, and that boldness in offering radical hospitality is our calling, rather than canonically-driven caution.”

Of course, people who may be stepping into the church for the first time don't know that "the communion Christ intended for all is perilous and difficult." They may know absolutely nothing about it at all, in fact.

So why would we want to invite them into it, without giving them a chance to consider and decide if it's something they're interested in for themselves or not?

And it's interesting, too, that this resolution is - yet again - framed so that it's "all about us" - our "boldness," and our "calling." It seems incredible to me that anybody would take it upon themselves to invite people into something "perilous and difficult," sight unseen.

I'm pretty liberal when it comes to Christianity, but please don't do this! All we need is for the haters to say, "see, here's more proof that they're not really Christians."

Morris Post

Re to Morris Post: The haters are going to say what they will regardless of our policy about reception of Holy Communion. Besides, isn't it more "Christian" to be welcoming of people to the table rather than excluding them? I, for one, am entirely in agreement with this resolution. The Eucharist is something to be shared not something to be coveted and protected.

-Cullin R. Schooley

What would the radical hospitality of Jesus do? Feed them for God's sake!

Remember folks: Scripture, tradition, and REASON. I'm all for this regardless of what anyone might say about it.

Strongly against it. Christianity itself is inclusive. Salvation is for all, all who accept and receive.

My prayer is this is voted down. Barbara is entirely right that if life in Christ is as difficult as Eastern Oregon believes it is, then why would we want people to drink from such a cup without having a baptismal welcome and understanding of what such a commitment in Christ means??

Eric

My head is one place on this, my heart another: I look forward to the debate (which I hope will yield More Light, as well as the Heat we're already seeing above), to see if my head&heart might be brought together.

Holy Spirit, guide your church into all Truth.

JC Fisher

Oh, good - for a while there I was afraid that the Episcopal Church wasn't going to have anything to tear itself apart over for the first time in a couple of decades.

Lead with your heart. MHO, I hope they will vote "yes."

This weekend's gospel says: "Those who love their life lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me, and where I am, there will my servant be also. Whoever serves me, the Father will honor."

I wonder if and how this might apply to this very important question.

If your comments are not appearing - it is because you have not signed your name. Also please refrain from attacks on others - debate your own point of view.

Frankly, I don't think this is well-grounded in Scripture, Tradition, or Reason. Stuff like this has always come across to me as more of an appeal to vague niceness than either well-grounded theology or a call to the costly agape of the Gospel.

How inclusive is this, really? Is it really "inclusive" to ask someone to doesn't believe in Christ or God to participate in our central sacraments? Or would this be experienced as a way to impose our beliefs and practices on others? It reeks too much of altar calls, where attendees can be pressured to go up and "repent" so they don't get left out. Wouldn't there be the same risk of social pressure in something like this? In fact, I actually have encountered someone on another blog who, as an athiest, did feel uncomfortable when the priest announced "All are invited." Anecdotal, I know, but I think worth considering.

For that matter, what meaning can this have for a non-Christian, with its language of an incarnate God announcing he is present in bread and wine, right before he's crucified and resurrected for all? How does the Incarnation fit into this? Or the idea of mystical union with God? Just what is Communion, in this sense? Does taking part in communion have anything to do with our communion with one another? How do we understand it as a sacrament, and how do we understand the other sacraments in relation to this? Isn't the mystery of grace offered to all already given in Baptism? Does repentance matter?

In short, do we risk tossing aside 2000 years of tradition, symbolism, and theology just to avoid the chance we'll look like jerks?

-Alex Scott

While they're at it, we should also put to a vote to disregard 1 Corinthians 11:28-31. It's too exclusive right? What about the people who don't want to examine themselves?

Alex points out a basic problem with CWOB. It really does, in a way, put a visitor on the spot, and encourages people to take part in the Eucharist for fear that it will make *them* look ungracious for turning down the invitation.

I also disagree with the contention that just taking part in the service itself is all the preparation anyone needs to receive Communion. Leaving aside the long tradition of even the baptized making careful preparation for it outside of the service, expecting a half hour or hour's liturgy to provide adequate preparation to someone who has no prior experience with Christianity or the Eucharist is putting more weight on the liturgy than it can bear.

Which is why the Church has traditionally had catechism instruction to teach new believers. Every single aspect of the faith is broken down.

I agree with Alex and Bill and I appreciate your good explanations.

I am with Alex and Bill on this. There is a clear difference in the Gospel texts between shared meals and the institution of the Lord's Supper. There is nothing exclusive in saying that this sacrament is for the initiated. The early church has a three year catechumenate before people received eucharist and yet it thrived, did it not? It made a whole series of ethical demands and people still came to seek baptism and then eucharist.

Also, if this resolution is passed, how does this square with our baptismal ecclesiology? How can we say at one time that all baptized are equipped for the ministry and at the other time say baptism is not necessary at all for participating in the very act that identifies us as the Body of Christ on a weekly basis?
Proclaim the Gospel boldly, make disciples, baptize them and then invite them to share in the supper so they are empowered to make disciples of Jesus.

Dan Joslyn-Siemiatkoski

Babies don't understand anything about baptism or communion - yet they participate without understanding and can continue to do so until death with no more instruction. I don't think the argument about needing a certain knowledge base stands up to reality.
No one forces visitors to take communion but many I know who felt called to it before baptism are the most faithful of believers. The invitation to baptism should be made often but if someone comes seeking feeding I am not checking their credentials.
It is mystery of God - not of humans. There is no record that all the disciples were baptized - you gotta wonder if it was all that important - wouldn't it have been mentioned?
The rubric is in place - and I obey but I am happy that Eastern Oregon has taken this out to be discussed.

Babies don't participate; their parents do. And their parents - and Godparents - have promised to instruct them at their baptism.

(Anyway, the problem is not with the people being invited; it's with us, for inviting people to communion who may be completely uninformed about what's going on - all the while claiming, and apparently believing, that "the communion Christ intended for all is perilous and difficult."

We're the problem.)

The proposal for communion without or prior to baptism leads one to meditate seriously upon Bonhoeffer's comments about "cheap grace." Opposed!

Last time I looked grace was free.

Oh Ann and Bruce - y'all have brought up my favorite point! I don't pretend to understand the gift of God's grace, but doesn't the acceptance of the gift obligate us to live up to the gift? In obedience and sacrifice and study and observation? Not because it will be revoked, but because the workings of the Holy Spirit in us make us desire that?

Oh Ann and Bruce - y'all have brought up my favorite point! I don't pretend to understand the gift of God's grace, but doesn't the acceptance of the gift obligate us to live up to the gift? In obedience and sacrifice and study and observation? Not because it will be revoked, but because the workings of the Holy Spirit in us make us desire that?

But grace is also undeserved. Christ did pay the ultimate price. Has baptism really become too much for some people? I see it like this, if you're called to communion, you're called to baptism.

"[C]an continue to do so until death with no more instruction"? What does that mean? I really do not understand what you're getting at here.

And note that where infants are communicated, they are *baptized* infants. Even the Orthodox, who give Communion to infants on a much more regular basis than anyone in the West, don't just give it to all and sundry on the theory that it's good for what ails babies. The babies take Communion because they are baptized. It doesn't seem to make any more sense to argue that because babies take Communion without preparation or instruction we should be giving it to unbaptized adults without preparation or instruction, than it would be to argue that, because we baptize infants without preparation or instruction, we should therefor be baptizing adults without preparation.

"The invitation to baptism should be made often but if someone comes seeking feeding I am not checking their credentials." But that's neither here not there. Unlike the Orthodox and some Lutherans, Episcopalians generally don't ask to see your papers at the Communion rail; no one's asking you to start doing so now. The issue isn't barring unprepared people from Communion if they present themselves, but inviting them to do so.

"Last time I looked grace was free." Grace IS free, in that we cant earn it. That doesn't mean that we don't make vows and promises before Baptism, Confirmation, Marriage, or Ordination; we still require people to confess before receiving sacramental Absolution. We can't earn sacramental grace - but receiving it comes at a real cost and consequence to the recipient.

It's not the level of knowledge, but the fact that communion is an act of faith. How can it mean anything if you don't believe in it? Otherwise it's just an empy ritual.

Another matter is what it represents. This is important, because this is what a sacrament is, an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. What is that inward grace? Is it our acceptance in Christ? Or our unity in Christ, and our union with Christ?

-Alex Scott (added by editor)

While I understand and appreciate the generous spirit behind this resolution, might it not be overlooking the sacrament of inclusion we know as baptism, to which the catechism in the Book of Common Prayer bears beautiful witness?

"Baptism is the sacrament by which God adopts us as his children and makes us members of Christ's Body, the Church, and inheritors of the kingdom of God."

"Baptism is union with Christ in his death and resurrection, birth into God's family the Church, forgiveness of sins, and new life in the Holy Spirit."

What a beautiful summary of what the Bible has to say about baptism's inclusiveness!

Baptism joins us to Christ: "As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ" (Galatians 3:27).

Baptism includes us in in Christ's death and resurrection: "We have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:4).

Baptism joins us to each other in one body, Christ's: "In the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body -- Jews or Greeks, slaves or free -- and we were all made to drink of one Spirit" (1 Corinthians 12:13).

(Ah! First we were baptized, then we were brought to drink...)

Baptism is all about inclusion and communion in Christ. So one wonders: why would someone want to commune with Christ in the bread and wine of the eucharist, but refrain from communing with him in the waters of baptism? The same Christ is present in the baptismal font as in the eucharistic chalice and paten.

So why not invite people not to an open table, but first to the baptismal font?

Baptism reminds us that Christianity is more than a momentary or impulsive "brush with Christ," an impression open communion without baptism might unwittingly project. Baptism reminds us that Christ is not only communion, but commitment -- a lifelong commitment to following him in what is called "discipleship," to which there is a cost.

That cost of discipleship is so wonderfully laid out in the Episcopal Church's baptismal covenant: belief in the triune God; rejection of the devil, evil and sin; acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior; the need for ongoing repentance and conversion; commitment to resist temptation, to seek and serve Christ in all, and to strive for justice, peace and dignity for every human being.

All that can easily be missed in casual communion without the prior commitment of baptism, in which we "put on Christ" and are included in his body.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer wisely warned against "cheap grace." "Is the price that we are paying today with the collapse of the organized churches anything else but an inevitable consequence of grace acquired too cheaply?" he wondered. The dispensing of grace "without asking questions or fixing limits" in a church where "everything can be had for nothing," without commitment or consequence, as he put it, just might be one of the reasons why Christianity became so rote and routine for so many, weakening its impact in and on the world today.

"We poured out rivers of grace without end, but the call to rigorously follow Christ was seldom heard," Bonhoeffer lamented. "What happened to the insights of the ancient church, which in the baptismal teaching watched so carefully over the boundary between the church and the world, over costly grace?"

Bonhoeffer's mention of the ancient church's example bears thinking about, especially if open communion without baptism is billed as an enhancement of mission and inclusiveness. For the earliest Christians, worship and sacraments were never a "method" of mission and evangelism. For the first three centuries, they practiced closed communion and even dismissed the unbaptized from worship before the eucharist was celebrated! Yet in spite of that, they gained throngs of converts and overtook a hostile, pagan society. How? Because "outsiders" saw and were intrigued by the way they lived in a spirit of discipleship driven by appreciation for the costliness of grace. Outside of church and worship, they saw Christlike people reflecting Jesus Christ.

Yes, Jesus dined quite inclusively with prostitutes and tax-collecting turncoats (for which I so thank God and which is why I find Jesus so intriguing and compelling!), and he did feed crowds with a few loaves and fishes. But not all of his meals were so open. The one in which broke bread and gave thanks over wine, saying "Take, eat, this is my body," "Drink this, all of you, this is my blood," and "Do this for the remembrance of me" took place behind closed doors in an upper room with relatively few of his disciples.

"Wash your hands before you sit down to eat!" How many heard that from our mothers or fathers so often before mealtime when we were growing up? First we wash, then we eat... That relationship between baptism and the eucharist, followed by Christians for thousands of years, ought not to be taken too lightly or discarded too hastily. We ought to pause and ponder why it has been that way for so long, and what we could lose if we were to break continuity with it.

Bill - I was answering the points that people need to be baptized so they will understand the why of communion.

Please, please, please, let's not call it "Open Communion;" that term is already taken, and refers to people in one part of the Church take Communion in another. Presbyterians receiving at Methodist altars, Episcopalians receiving at Lutheran altars - THAT's Open Communion. The topic under discussion is something else entirely, and labeling it with the name Open Communion only muddies the waters.

Mo. Fontaine, I got that - it was the continuing to participate until death without instruction that puzzled me

Bill - anyone who gets baptized can continue to receive communion - whether or not they have any idea about commitment or "price" etc. For instance - I was confirmed at 12 but have no memory of it - but it is a "ticket" to participation on many levels in the church.

I don't see CWOB as a permanent act - but a step that occasionally comes before baptism. Read Sara Miles for her experience.

I think if children and adults as well don't have instruction on the life of the church, the failure is with their parents,sponsors, and the parishes. If you don't intend to grow or teach those you took the vow on their behalf, then you will have to answer for it. It's not an excuse for communing the unbaptized.

The Great Commission extols us to go out and baptize all the nations, not to give bread and wine to all the nations. I don't think it's too much to expect someone to undertake the basic rite of initiation in the Church in order to be in communion with the Church.

Morris Post (added by editor)

Heres to hoping that the TEC General Convention does not vote in favor of this resolution.

Bro. David
KONY 2012

"The Gifts of God for the People of God."

Do we actually mean that without reservation? Or do you have to do something to deserve it? Remember that at the last supper both a betrayer and a denier were fed. None of us are worthy except by God's grace and none of us is ready on some level. But honestly; pretending that this would somehow make our guests uncomfortable (or put them on the spot) is a complete projection and rationalization.

Jesus fed hungry people. Period. So should we.

"The Gifts of God for the People of God."

Do we actually mean that without reservation? Or do you have to do something to deserve it? Remember that at the last supper both a betrayer and a denier were fed. None of us are worthy except by God's grace and none of us is ready on some level. But honestly; pretending that this would somehow make our guests uncomfortable (or put them on the spot) is a complete projection and rationalization.

Jesus fed hungry people. Period. So should we.

Gosh, sorry for that posting reflux.

The Eucharist shouldn't be treated like a soup kitchen. Christ Himself certainly didn't see it that way.

In the parable of the Wedding Feast, where the lord finished up inviting everybody to his feast,he still threw out the one without a wedding gown.(Matthew 22:1-14)

I'm glad to have anyone come to the table if they are moved to do so. The notion that people don't know what's going on is unconvincing, considering every Eucharistic prayer spells it out pretty thoroughly. I wonder what all the fuss is all about. God brings us the people, we embrace and encourage them. It is surely the work of the spirit that brings them. Don't you want to know how the spirit is working in them?

Our ability to invite people in is hampered by this knee jerk reaction to make sure they know what we think is important, whereas, if we are quiet enough and listen, folks might have space to formulate their own questions, which we might then graciously answer.

People are smart and curious and if God sends you someone, welcome them, find out a little bit about them, get them a drink, and invite them to supper before you ask them to marry into the family.

It's the unconditional love that I love about this the most. Nothing else matters as much as the invitation to it, and it is as much an invitation to those of us already gathered as it is to those friends whom we have yet to meet.

That assumes that those who have not committed themselves to the Christian faith are "the people of God." I'm not saying that aren't loved by God, made in God's image, or precious in God's sight. However, they are not (yet) part of God's family until they have been adopted into it through baptism. Hence the scripture "but to all that received him, that believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God..." (emphasis mine).

One can debate whether baptism should be required before taking communion. Given that 99% of our services are Eucharists and there will (hopefully!) be increasing numbers of seekers walking through out doors, I don't think one can say "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You, But Not for Communion."

Not to mention, this has to be one of the most violated of our canons. Many, I suspect hundreds, of congregations explicitly invite all people to receive communion regardless of whether they have been baptized or not. I DO think that rather than simply eliminating the requirement, churches should be required to actively follow up with those unbaptized receiving communion and encourage them to be baptized at the earliest opportunity.

Peter, if anything is a projection, it's the assertion that those who oppose this move do so because they think that the unbaptized are unworthy of receiving Communion, while the baptized are. It's certainly not an objection anyone here seems to have made.

"I DO think that rather than simply eliminating the requirement, churches should be required to actively follow up with those unbaptized receiving communion and encourage them to be baptized at the earliest opportunity."

Now this I think I can get behind. I certainly understand some people choosing to go receive of their own accord (in which case, it's their responsibility, between them and God), or churches offering it in special circumstances according to need.

As a temporary measure, I'm less concerned, but I don't think it should be the norm.

I just think a more genuine inclusion is in demonstrating our sacramental worship to visitors, and inviting them to learn about the church and be baptized. We need to respect differences, not pretend they aren't there.

I also think if we make it permanent practice, we risk losing a sense of holiness in the Eucharist that the Church has maintained from the beginning. Catholics venerate the reserved host. Orthodox perform the communion rites behind an icon screen only the clergy are allowed to enter. We don't need to go that far (not entirely--I constantly wish my church had more icons) in either direction. But do we treat it as sacred? And if not, how can we expect anyone else to?

Two big questions keep running through my mind: What do we understand the Eucharist to be? and What do we understand the Church to be? I think these are at the core of this discussion.

- Alex Scott

I think 'unworthy' and 'unprepared' are the theological touchpoints, and that it's not just the stranger but us. Written in other circumstances, but to the point in our present conversation, remember George Herbert's poem "Love"

Love bade me welcome; yet my soul drew back,
Guilty of dust and sin.
But quick-eyed love, observing me grow slack
From my first entrance in,
Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning
If I lack'd anything.

"A guest," I answer'd, "Worthy to be here:"
Love said, "You shall be he."
"I, the unkind, ungrateful, Ah, my dear,
I cannot look on Thee."
Love took my hand and smiling did reply
"Who made the eyes but I?"

"Truth, Lord; but i have marr'd them: let my shame
Go where it doth deserve."
"And know you not," says Love, "Who bore the blame?"
"My dear, then I will serve."
"You must sit down," says Love, "and taste my meat."
So I did sit and eat.

When someone insists that the Last Supper is DIFFERENT from the other meals Jesus kept with the unworthy and unprepared (his prophetic sign from Isaiah), I'm reminded of on-line discussions I've had with Roman Catholics about the ordination of women. Catholics opposed to the ordaining women will almost inevitably argue that "they weren't present at the Last Supper" so they can't be ordained. What do we know about who was present at the Last Supper? Were the apostles who are named variously in different Gospel accounts baptized? (Any of them baptized at all?) Is everyone named a Jewish male? Does any Gospel say, "No one but those I've mentioned were present?" And when Jesus says, "Do this..." what's he talking about? Sounds to me like he's interpreting his meal practice, the sign he's enacted that's enraged the religious leaders - Isaiah's vision of a holy meal where God welcomes all. As I read it, he's offering a startling additional interpretation to the familiar feasting his followers have done with him.

I think too, that this is a cop-out for hospitality- another thing we can do, like posting "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You" signs to say, look we're really welcoming! (and then scratch our heads when it doesn't bring waves of people through the door.) Communion for the un-baptized as an act of hospitality feels like "look, we'll even let you have our Jesus bread, commitment free, just try it, you might like it!" without us actually having to do the work of being radically welcoming. Now, I don't know this diocese or all parishes that ignore the canon, but I do know some. If they're as radical in the rest of their praxis of hospitality as their arguments for this are, I'd be more sympathetic, (though no less disagreeing. And I'm already sympathetic to the good urges behind this, just think it's the wrong application of them.) Yes, Eucharist costs something- dying and being reborn with Christ in Baptism. Things that cost you, things that are hard, are generally of more value. People understand that. Jesus didn't break bread with his disciples the first day, he didn't do it at the feeding of the thousands- it was in a small, intimate gathering, after three years of wandering, working, living together. They had picked up their cross and followed. Maybe they hadn't all been baptized by John, but they had all made their choice about following Jesus.

If we really want to be radically welcoming we can do that and it does not have to be mutually exclusive with our standing Baptismal and Eucharistic theology. It has to do with living INTO our baptisms and INTO the Eucharist and dying every day, for the world, with our church budgets, with how we treat others. That is what will get people's attention, that is what might showcase the Holy Spirit at work among us and through us.

And if we're really hung-up about the sharing bread thing, why not do like the Orthodox do and offer blessed bread to all, with the Eucharist remaining the Communion of the baptized.

It's important to keep in mind that a church service is a foreign language to people who aren't used to it. And this is a religious rite that those "in the know" have been taught something about - including "how to do it."

Here's an example of the problematic nature of CWOB, from the ritual point of view. At a Christmas service (I think it was), somebody came to the altar rail after being invited. He clearly had never done this before, and didn't know whether to stand or kneel. He finally knelt, and the host was put into his hand. I was chalice-bearer, and followed up, offering him the chalice with the words "The blood of Christ, the cup of salvation." He looked terribly confused, glancing at the host and then the chalice, and finally looked up at me and asked, confusedly, "What do I do?"

He didn't know anybody; he didn't know "the family." Nobody "invited" him, personally, to supper, to sit with him and answer his questions; it was all very impersonal. This doesn't seem "loving" to me; it seems....impersonal. I don't think that young man was feeling much of anything except discomfort and confusion. He didn't know what was going on or even the first thing about "what to do" - yet we invited him anyway.

It's really not right, and not a good idea. It's really not enough, listening to the Eucharistic Prayer for the first time, ever - and then having, literally, 15 seconds to "decide" whether this is something a person can agree with.

This is not even to get into the idea of putting liturgical words into peoples' mouths - "Amen" upon receiving the host, "the body of Christ" (I've previously here discussed the "instructed Eucharist" in which people were told to respond "Amen" to the priests' words, once again without knowing anything about what was being said.)

It's really NOT about us.

(And, BTW, here's what the Catechism has to say about reception of Communion:

Q. What is required of us when we come to the Eucharist?
A. It is required that we should examine our lives, repent of our sins, and be in love and charity with all people.

I don't know about you, but I don't come up to that standard most of the time, myself. But it does say "required"; it's not a "suggestion."

And of course, nobody who's "invited to supper" is asked to do any of this, either.)

It would seem that we invite infants to enter the Kingdom of God, as a birthright. After centuries the Church in Her wisdom has concluded, you would not starve children who are hungry born into the world, because they do not understand the need, functions, or necessity of eating- so we give them food. Likewise when they are born into the Kingdom of God, by virtue of Baptism, we feed them and nurture them with Holy Communion. We would not deny food to the physically hungy, why the Spiritually hungry? I don't know there is a God made order of reception of Sacraments, just human-kind's best attempts at organization--maybe the chart has changed. I think because of Paul's words it needs to be clear that intention is important- why would those unbaptised want to take communion, what is their motivation...

The church is radically inclusive and baptism is the means by which people are included. Communion is the celebration of that inclusion, not its means.

It is supremely ironic that a church that spends so much energy (rightly) celebrating the baptismal covenant could then turn its back on its significance in what seems a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of these two sacraments, and their interrelationship.

I would still like to ask those who are in favor of the Resolution:

How can you claim that "We know from our strivings within ecumenism and mission that the communion Christ intended for all is perilous and difficult" - and then immediately invite people who, by definition, don't know this (or anything else about it), to participate?

I think the problem is that, regarding the Eucharist, many in our Church have taken a path that is so sentimental and frankly vapid, that a key ancient understanding of the Eucharist--an understanding which gives the sacrament its power, and I'm not kidding about power--has been set aside as too difficult.

This is the Body and Blood of Christ. It is not just a supper feeding the hungry, that all are invited to. Christ the Pascal Lamb was sacrificed. That's the key. The holy Sacrifice for the salvation of all the world is there for us to partake of, just as the ancient priests killed animals in sacrifice, left the fattiest parts on the altar of immolation, and had a holy barbeque with the rest. At least the sacrificing priests ("Ye are a royal priesthood") ate of this, and usually those who offered, and their friends. Also, by eating of the sacrifice, you assented to its spiritual power, and cemented a relationship with the deity to which this sacrifice was offered, which is why it was very questionable if early Christians could even eat meat from the market, since nearly all of it was sacrificed to the gentile gods before being butchered, for many reasons involving the sanctity of life, religious observance, etc. So, beyond even the writings we have about this, this image, symbol, sign and spiritual power - that of the Body and Blood of Christ the Paschal Lamb being eaten in the form of bread and wine for all time until he comes again - was extraordinarily powerful enough to inspire nearly everything else we believe today as Christians. To eat this bread and drink this cup ("My flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed") was understood to signify your acceptance of this grace, to demonstrate your Pistis, your trust in its efficacy, and to denote your relationship with the deity that is the focus of the sacrifice. This is serious stuff, and requires full examination before partaking, because once you do, you've made that decision, taken that plunge. Haven't you? Or is it just for fun, for show, for making people feel better?

I do not deny that communion can come before baptism, but a liturgy that would make this possible would be very long, very wordy, very complicated, and full of exhortations. One would almost need two separate rites, one that is our usual Holy Eucharist, and another that is the Holy Eucharist For Those Who Are As Yet Unbaptized. Nearly all of us baptized would just skip that big long production and go to the regular Eucharist.

So in closing, I will say this. Before there were Christian Scriptures, there was this, this Holy Eucharist, these images, symbols, signs, pledges, sacrifice, and all the care, examination and exhortation that is fitting for something so incredibly powerful. This was going on decades before anyone dared write anything about it, before anyone had a chance to get down in writing their own take and thus possibly screw it up for those who came after. And still it was carefully guarded as a mystery and an extremely serious pledge of faith to what it meant and to the God who gave it that meaning. I can argue with the Scriptures and their authors, but I don't have the faith or knowledge to argue with the primal images and mysteries that gave rise to our religion in the first place.

I wish Dr. Louis Weil, retired of CDSP, had made public the text of his Epiphany West address in which he came out strongly against communion without baptism, because it should be required reading for anyone who cares about this issue. I was a student of Louis' and I know that he agonized over it before finally concluding that the practice of communion without baptism was inherently problematic theologically. His argument is that the practice trivializes baptism, which is a sacrament we have expended enormous energies reclaiming as central to our Christian identity. Why in the world would we want to do something like that?

In the congregation of which I am rector, I do not play communion cop at the rail, but I am clear that the Eucharist is the sacrament of the baptized. Not only has no one complained so far, but all the adults I have baptized have thanked me for asking them to wait, because being baptized, fed, and chrismated all at the same time in the presence of the gathered community was deeply meaningful to them.

It is hard to ask people to wait in a culture that demands instant gratification, but I thought Christianity was supposed to be counter-cultural.

Walter, the Church has also concluded over the centuries that the Eucharist is for the faithful. It's the most sacred rite of the Church. Babies have been initiated into the church and are expected to be taught the faith by their parents and the church. Do we really think we know this much better than the centuries of priests, bishops, and theologians that came before us?

We tend to forget that the agape of God isn't always warm and fuzzy. Those who joined the early church could be expected to give up friends and family and personal pleasures. They had a realistic chance of becoming martyrs. It was genuinely dangerous to become Christian--as it still is in some countries. This may be part of why it could take three years to get baptized: the Church had to be sure you understood what you were getting into. To this end, the Liturgy of the Word used to be called the Liturgy of the Catechumens. The Catechumens were expected to attend regularly to hear the gospel preached and learn and grow and pray before they were ready to be baptized. For that matter, the Epistle to Peter refers to becoming "Partakers of the divine nature." Seraphim of Sarov said that every practice of the church has the goal of acquiring the Spirit of God. Is that what we're calling people to do?

Or is this just about feeling or seeming nice? We need to be careful that this isn't just about our own egos. Especially if it's not done with an adequate grounding in scripture and our own tradition.

Just because we don't include everybody in everything we do doesn't mean we can't also be kind, generous, and welcoming, and it doesn't mean we have to grill people on their baptism when they come up to the rail. I believe people are on their own honor; it's not for the priest or anyone else to discern your conscience for you.

And I agree with Karen: I think this does trivialize baptism. When I talk about understanding our sacraments, I'm talking about us. If we're to change one of our most ancient and theologically complex spiritual practices, we need to be sure we ourselves have adequate grounding in scripture and tradition. Again, if we don't think this is sacred and important, how can we expect anyone else to?

Another thing about Catholic and Orthodox practice:

In the Catholic Church, you not only have to be Catholic, you have to be in a state of grace. That means if you've committed a mortal sin, you should not take communion. Still, I was raised Catholic, and every church I've been to let people know that if you aren't receiving, you can still go up for a quick blessing.

And in the Orthodox Church, they use leavened bread. No special "state of grace" is required (depending on how often you receive), but it is only for the Orthodox. They do, however, save unconsecrated bits of the bread for the end of the liturgy, when they bless it, and give it to everybody in attendance. Depending on the church, this includes non-Orthodox, so they can get a blessing as well on their way out.

Now, I don't think we have to be so stringent with communion. Open Communion has worked fine for us. But I always kind of liked these practices. It includes people without compromising their Eucharistic theology.

(another thing I find remarkable about the Orthodox is their dislike of pews, which I didn't know until recently were a relatively recent addition to Western churches. They view it as cutting the laity off from participation in the liturgy, and reducing it to a performance.)

Alex Scott

(Editor added name. Thanks for the thoughtful comment Alex. Please do remember to sign your name next time though.

Fr Schell, whether or not the apostles were baptized is irrelevant - what cannot be disputed is that they were the intimate companions of Jesus, not people who were meeting him for the first time. Jesus instituted the Eucharist at a fellowship meal with his friends, not during the Sermon on the Mount or on the Plain. That has nothing to do with their personal characteristics (male, Jewish, fisherman) but with their prior relationship to Jesus.

The appeal to (un)worthiness really is a bit of a straw man set up by the proponents of CWOB. It's not something argued by opponents - we really do understand that no one is worthy.

Accounts from the early Church witness to the fact that the Eucharist proper was reserved for the baptized; as a master of fact, the Synaxis/Gathering (what we call the Liturgy of the Word) wasn't joined to the Eucharist for centuries. The unbaptized attended the former, but not the latter. Even after the two services were joined, the unbaptized were excluded with words still retained in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy; the unbaptized weren't allowed to be present at the Eucharist itself until the 8th century. I have yet to see a proponent of CWOB engage this very strong precedent, rather than dismiss it out of hand with an appeal to "radical hospitality" (as if the early Church were not interested in welcoming newcomers).

Scott: Thank you for your thoughtful insight. My initial response, a few years ago, would, and was, very much the same. However, there is also a fairly strong strain within Anglicanism, that to call upon the name of Jesus is all that is necessary for salvation. There is also historic precedence in the greater Church for some waiting until their death-bed before baptism. While I am promoting neither view above "traditional teaching," I do understand them. I also understand that some may question the baptismal form administered them --say, in the name of Jesus rather than Trinitarian. I might also point out in God there is no time, so what matter does it make comes first in spiritual things-- the Baptism or Holy Communion, The Chicken or the Egg?

The resolution makes it sound almost as if the restriction of Communion to the baptized is something that the Canons pulled out of nowhere. As many other commenters have pointed out, of course, this has been the practice of the Church since its earliest days. Justin Martyr describes it like this in his First Apology (ch. 66):

"[T]his food is called among us Εὐχαριστία . . . [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."

This notion of Eucharist as participation in the body of Christ is what makes it incredibly dangerous (I think) to go down the CWOB path. Because it's not a generic, nebulous body - it's a crucified body. Augustine says this, too, in Sermon 272:

“So if it’s you that are the Body of Christ and its members, it’s the mystery meaning you have been placed on the Lord’s table . . . It is to what you are that you reply Amen, and by so replying you express your assent . . . Be what you can see, and receive what you are.”

Yes, the Eucharist is a meal, and it's fellowship, but it's also much more than that. By coming to the table we enter into the dynamic of the cross as well as the resurrection. We are placed on the Lord's table. And that's not a trivial thing, as Jesus says: "Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" (Mark 14:36) As Clint and Alex rightly note, it's serious business, and I think that true hospitality would lie in witnessing to that seriousness in our lives as well as in our liturgies.

I believe that in Mark 14:36 Jesus is speaking of His suffering, death, and resurrection. And, no, it is not trivial, but I am not sure that I, unlike the disciples, could meet the challenge to die painfully and horribly for the Faith. The notion of "thanksgiving," and "Eucharist," seem to have been misused and mischaracterized by modernity. For me, a better phrase would be Holy Communion -- becoming one with God, through the Body of Christ, the Church. Or, "The Lord's Supper" - the transformation of the elements into the true presence of Christ, as we take Him into ourselves. Both have a sense of transcendence that seems more full than Eucharist (which is like offering thanksgiving over a meal. I mean by that, Blessing not Consecrating)...All invite us into a oneness with God, through Christ, and all promise transformation... I might add that the same admonition to "Do This" is given over foot washing, as over Holy Communion, and both are given us by the action of Christ Himself through example. So should we be baptised to participate in footwashing, another transformed, ordinary, act of Our Lord's day? I think not...

Walter: Now you're losing me; maybe I'm misunderstanding. How can "Eucharist" be "misused and mischaracterized" by modernity, when what we're talking about is the ancient rite?

And I really think the foot-washing is more a demonstration of the servant-leadership that Christians are called to model. He doesn't just say, "Do this," but "I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you." Christ's language about the bread and wine is much stronger: he connects it with his own body and blood, and the New Covenant itself. It's tied to the very act of salvation he came to accomplish. To put the former on the same level as the Eucharist is to ignore the centuries-old tradition that the Episcopal Church claims to continue.

To address the fact that the betrayer and denier were there, I'll point out that Paul says that those who eat without discernment "eat and drink judgment against themselves." Which I'd suggest is exactly what Judas did.

I understand full well that some people might question these things. Some may even be offended. Isn't our job, then, as a church, to explain and teach, without judgment or condemnation? And not simply concede whatever might cause trouble?

One thing I've learned from dealing with my own social anxiety is, you can't worry all the time about whether everybody's going to like you. You have to take a risk sometimes. And you don't have to sacrifice love and generosity to do so, either.

I'll also point out that while God is indeed outside of time, we are very much within it. And in our lives, as temporal members of the body of Christ, Baptism does come before the Eucharist, just as it did for Jesus himself, and just as it comes before Ordination. If you want a sacrament that serves as revelation of the inward grace of accepting Christ and joining His body, we have baptism. The Eucharist doesn't just invite us to oneness with God, it celebrates it and moves it closer to its goal.

If we do go this route, what then do we say the Eucharist means to us? I have yet to see an adequate answer for that from the pro-CWOB camp.

-Alex Scott

All invite us into a oneness with God, through Christ, and all promise transformation.

And this is just the problem. A.A.'s Step 5 ("Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.") says bluntly that "Going it alone in spiritual matters is dangerous."

And without support, background, or any kind of prior relationship, that's what people will be doing who are invited to participate in something something we say requires examination of our lives and repentance of sin - the very things with which Step 5 concerns itself (along with confessing these sins). Something that we ourselves claim is "perilous and difficult."

Step 5 goes on to add:

How many times have we heard well-intentioned people claim the guidance of God when it was all too plain that they were sorely mistaken. Lacking both practice and humility, they had deluded themselves and were able to justify the most arrant nonsense on the ground that this was what God had told them. It is worth noting that people of very high spiritual development almost always insist on checking with friends or spiritual advisers the guidance they feel they have received from God. Surely, then, a novice ought not lay himself open to the chance of making foolish, perhaps tragic, blunders in this fashion. While the comment or advice of others may be by no means infallible, it is likely to be far more specific than any direct guidance we may receive while we are still so inexperienced in establishing contact with a Power greater than ourselves.

What Baptism ensures is at least some introduction to the spiritual life - which I don't think people are recognizing is rather an imperative. It also provides a newcomer with at least one person - the priest who's instructing the newcomer - for support and to talk things over with. If you take a look at the New Testament, you'll notice that prior to every instance of a Sacrament - both Baptism and Eucharist - at least one person spends quite a lot of time with a neophyte, talking about the faith and explaining things.

As people have said above: this is not all "warm and fuzzy." I mean, we cannot talk out of both sides of our mouths here. Is communion "perilous and difficult" or not? If it is, why are we telling people it's perfectly OK to participate in it with no support, no prior knowledge, and no community to lean on?

I'll back up Barbara based on my own spiritual reading and my own experience in prayer. Mystics from all over warn against practice without guidance. Love and kindness and hospitality are one thing. Union with God is something else entirely.

PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME Keromaru5 ~ed.

In God, we transcend time through Christ, which is a central point of the The Holy Communion. To assume that there was some full understanding of Baptism, or the Lord's Supper, from the beginning, or "Orders" of Deacons, "Priests," and Bishops, rather than a long process of adding theology and formalization -- not to mention structure and authority-- would seem to suggest that credibility had reached its limits, historically speaking. I would suggest that the early "Eucharists" were indeed the sorts of events that would allow Communion to be far more accessible than we might like to acknowledge. Certainly, we have no certain knowledge that baptism looked like it does today, neat and font-contained, with infants in tow. As to foot washing, I think it is exactly what Jesus said that it was...And in Our Lord's Words of Institution I see nowhere in red letters "And thou shalt not share this Holy Communion with only those baptized properly..." I do read that Faith, Hope, and Love are indeed the greatest of gifts, and love chief among them. I also read, "come unto me all ye that travail and are heavy laden..." The invitation to take up the yoke is one offered to raise spirits, not to suggest that we dump all our burden on top of others...We offer the Sacraments as pointers, or even avenues to Christ, they are not our God, only pointers. All of humankind share the image of God, and all of humankind should be invited, by any sacramental means available, to consummate that relationship, be joined as one with Christ.

To the extent that the Eucharist is an extension of Jesus' own meal practice, a sacred act instantiating in space-time God's embrace of all people and an invitation to deeper communion, CWOB is entirely healthy development and to be celebrated.

To the extent that the Eucharist is a cultic, Neoplatonic devouring of a God-Man, who's in and who's out matters.

Of course, Christianity has always had to choose between Jesus and Empire, from the very beginning.

Josh, I suggest that is neither an accurate nor a charitable summation of the issues.

But there is a continuous understanding of Eucharist and Baptism over two thousand years beyond the Scriptures. We are not a sola scriptura church. Apostolic tradition has developed and evolved over time, and that's what we've inherited. Tossing it aside willy-willy only weakens us. I'd rather show the world that there's a reason we do things, that everything we do has meaning, and can be sacramental in its own way. We can be open to inquirers, make our teachings clear, instruct catechumens, and show how we love one another.

Have we simply been in error all this time? In all the time that the church has welcomed, embraced, and challenged people, and brought them to God, without undermining the meaning and significance of baptism and the eucharist, was it wrong?

Is the old way something for us to be ashamed of?

Is this about actually living up to the gospel? Or helping us feel better about ourselves, how unlike the fundamentalists we are?

Love is the greatest, but if our decisions are based on soft egotism, weak and vague Eucharistic theology, and a veiled disdain for the longstanding practice of the Church, is that really love?

-Alex Scott (so so sorry!)

I also still wonder where repentance fits in. It's a pretty constant theme in the new testament, on through the early church, the councils, and the reformation. Metanoia is said to be a gift from God, through which we approach our theosis. If we call people to communion before baptism, are we also encouraging some kind of repentance to go with it?

Here's how I understand Eucharistic theology: Christ calls us all to his table, but also calls us to turn away from sin. Not to "earn" our way, but so we can better recognize and realize in the bread and wine our union with God, and with each other. And to begin our union with God, we have to initiate it, to die and rise with Christ, to be born again as part of His body. That comes from conversion and is formally revealed in baptism. And it's with the realization that we're all always repenting and renewing ourselves, never perfect, until we come to truly live up to the image of God.

I do not think we should disallow anybody from communion. This is a matter entirely for the individual's conscience. Some may come up before baptism and be blessed. Others may take and eat "to their own condemnation," as St. Paul said. The same in both cases can go for people within the Church. It's not our job to judge, only guide with love. But the fullness of the Eucharistic experience comes with faith and communion with Christ and with the Church.

At least, that's how I see it.

- Alex Scott

I think the Church has held practices, formularies, and Customaries, in different places, in different times, different ways. I think of the English Church, for example, influenced at times by The East, at times by the West, High Church, Low Church, Sarum, reformers, Protestants, Romans, and Politicians, Kings, Queens, and in-betweens (sounds a little like Dr. Suess, sorry)... I have no doubt that Our foreparents would be appalled at the Church today, but I think it is because we are cleaner, nicer, don't burn people (for the most part), don't horse-whip and punish them, but rather struggle with issues of inclusion. I think the Church grows better...I trust Christ, and His unfolding...We didn't hang Jesus on the Cross, but we are called to share His love with the likes of those who did, or would -- selves included. If I thought the Holy Communion would bring to Christ one soul, unbaptized though they be, I'd rewrite a canon to do so with a magic marker. Just as Jesus fed the hungry and healed the sick on the Sabbath...I take the Holy Communion very seriously,because of its healing grace and love, not because it will make the unworthy sick. If that were the case we'd all be dead (spiritually and physically). It is Christ that makes us worthy, not we ourselves...He that saves us, not our own actions. he has given us sure access to His grace through the sacraments. Maybe we should start using them, rather than hide them under a basket for only the initiated, the Gnostic...

I’ve often pictured having to come to the communion rail with my Baptism Certificate. It seems odd to have to do this but what other way would the Priest be able to verify if someone is able to receive communion. I know with Episcopal Churches in my region the Priests do not verify that everyone at the rail has been baptized. I’ve been at some services at my Church where non-members attend a service such as a Funeral. Some non-members accept communion while some non-members do not accept communion. This is a choice that they make and no one is forcing them into making any of these decisions. When one chooses to accept communion they are sent with enough instruction to do so from God within them. God will direct us; all we need to do is listen to God. Those that are not listening to God’s instructions and taking communion when they are not supposed to, is an issue between themselves and God. We all need to start (and continue) a relationship with God when we feel the need despite a prerequisite to hold a Baptism Certificate.

Walter: And yet, and yet…

I'm not aware of any point in history when the Anglican church communicated non-Christians. Correct me if I'm wrong.

And just because something might bring somebody to Christ doesn't mean it's good for the church as a whole. Why not drop the priesthood? Or the liturgy? Why not drop the Old Testament? Sure, you'd get converts, but to what?

And what about pastoring people who are already here, and helping them better understand and grow in the faith?

I'm also not seeing any urgent pastoral need for this. We've dropped plenty of traditions because they were actively harmful to faithful and non alike. Who are we actually hurting here?

And finally, we are asking that we use the sacraments. We already do, baptism and communion, as we have received them. We're already far more lenient with communion than the Catholics and Orthodox. What you are suggesting looks like either dismissing baptism, or inverting its place in our life. That is, communion pointing to baptism, rather than the sacraments all pointing to communion.

- Alex Scott

he has given us sure access to His grace through the sacraments. Maybe we should start using them, rather than hide them under a basket for only the initiated, the Gnostic...

Um, we're advocating use of the Sacraments, ourselves.

And are we being accused of being Gnostics, now - for suggesting that it's a good thing to explain what's going on in our religious services to people who don't know because nobody's ever told them? Is that the meaning of that last word? Are we Gnostics for suggesting that it's a good thing to bring people into the community, rather than letting them wander around by themselves, mystified?

"We didn't hang Jesus on the Cross..."

Speak for yourself, Walter.

P.S. Baptism - the primary Sacrament - is available to anybody who asks. It's the ultimate in "inclusion" - and it seems mighty odd that it's being put forward here as some horrible, insurmountable, impossible, "Gnostic," "cultic God-Man-devouring," barrier. Why? It's not; read the story of the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts to see how the church views it, and how easy it can be to ask for and receive.

Baptism does demand a little more of us personally, of course; it might ask that we talk to people about faith ourselves, and explain things, and help them - and of course, the rite itself does ask that we promise to offer our help and assistance to people in their faith lives.

These all seem like excellent things, to me. Far better than letting people hang around on the fringes of the church without ever asking them to come in and be part of the community.

Perhaps the problem is that "Baptismal barrier" point of view being put forward here is past its use-by date at this point? Baptism's purpose is to give people support, and to clarify what may be mysterious for them - things that are the very opposite of Gnosticism, in fact.

(Actually, I shouldn't have referred to "Baptism's purpose" above - but something more like "the Baptismal process."

Obviously Baptism itself is about much more than simply support and clarification; it's another deep Sacramental mystery with many levels of meaning....)

Walter, the Anglican saints of those earlier eras are more likely to condemn us as lazy cowards on the grounds that we do and say far to little about the need to live genuinely virtuous lives, not because we haven't slaughtered enough heretics or failed to be sufficiently overbearing. Indeed, they were generally quite clear that friendly persuasion and calling people to strive towards the ideal while clearly striving towards that same ideal are much better ways to get recruits.

God is holy, and burns away any evil that comes to him like a refiner's fire. Similarly, our lord very clearly said that everyone who wishes to follow him and be his disciple must take up their cross daily and die to self. If visitors are unwilling to take up the responsibilities of the Christian life they shouldn't receive Christ in communion, and if they are willing to take up those responsibilities they should be baptized into Christ, even baptized immediately if they're unwilling to wait.

By the by, I don't think any of us against CWOB are in favor of demanding people to show their papers when they come to the communion rail. The priest issues the invitation, but it's up to each person whether they'll come forward to receive.

Part of me wonders if some of the controversy has to do with interpretation. Would you on the pro-CWOB side say the traditional theology of these sacraments is juridical, or therapeutic?

If the former, it kind of makes sense to me. Because then it really is about "earning" the Eucharist, and having to follow a set of rules for full participation, or else you're out. In that sense, I agree, it is hurtful and dangerous.

I'm looking at it more in the latter sense, where the Eucharist is one step among many toward the full healing of the soul, with baptism as the beginning--checking in at the waiting room, as it were (terrible metaphor, I know).

From what I know, that's how the Orthodox understand it--with the understanding that every sacrament (and they don't just limit themselves to 2, or 7--everything the Church does can be a sacrament) has its own role in healing the soul and bringing someone closer to God. That doesn't mean they all do the same thing, or come at the same points in a person's life.

And Barbara's right about baptism having its own theological mystery and meaning. Heck, in the Catholic and Orthodox churches, the rite includes exorcism! I'm not sure if the renunciations in our rite are intended as such (I'll have to ask tomorrow), but that's definitely what they're based on.

-Alex Scott

Bill,

There are no issues here when Jesus is the standard of orthodoxy. Of course, he rarely is.

The Eucharist grew out of Jesus' meal practice and the Passover seder. Much that came later, including the 3 fold office with its proscriptive rules for Eucharistic dispensation and witholding, and the theology of the god-man being eaten, came from Empire.

I think that is the reality.

Again, there is no issue except that power structures are threatened by the Spirit of Jesus and always will be. Then, as now, it is always a choice between his Spirit and the antichrist spirit, a great example being a.) excluding people from table when b.) including people at table was at the heart of his ministry.

The great pattern of reversal is continued, and Jesus is the first and continuous victim of toxic Christianity.

The great irony of this is, people are already eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ in an ontological way any time they intake any substance, as Christ is continuously creating the whole of creation, lighting us all up from the inside out, and drawing us all back into Himself.

The Eucharist is therefore a celebration both of the radically egalitarian Jesus and this larger reality, which makes the witholding of communion all the more ludicrous.

Good God, 77 posts now. Post after post of "I am Right, You are Wrong!" certitude.

Where's the epistemological humility? If ever there were a subject where "Of Course, I Could Be Wrong" would seem to be called for, this is it.

How can we welcome the stranger, WITH OR WITHOUT (before) BAPTISM, if we baptized can't model humble welcoming of different perspectives among ourselves?

JC Fisher

We're talking about one of the greatest sacraments of the Church. This is a serious issue. And for some,quite a bit actually, this is not acceptable. Period. There is no other way you can sugar coat it. This also gives me hope that it will be defeated.

Quite the thread here. I confess I haven't read every word. I note, however, that last summer the Canadian House of Bishops unanimously affirmed the idea that one must be baptized before receiving communion. (http://www.anglicanjournal.com/nc/other/news-items/c/house_of_bishops/article/no-eucharist-before-baptism-bishops-say-9784//abp/166.html).

I wonder if the American HoB is in a similar place? And is so, is that a different place than the House of Deputies?

-Jesse Zink

The Eucharist is not about feeding the hungry, it is about a sharing in the Body of Christ, the Body of the Sacrifice offered for the salvation of all the world. Agape meals might be about feeding the hungry, and I'm all for this and even for a revival of a full and rich agape practice. But receiving the Eucharist is a pledge of fidelity to the God involved, as revealed through Jesus Christ. That's why the Latins have used the word "sacramentum" to refer to this, and if you don't know what a sacramentum was originally before the Church took over the term, look it up.

Liturgical history is littered with various kinds of blessed food, food blessing rituals and agapes, from commonly seen rites like the Artoklasia, or the Antidoron after a Byzantine liturgy, to more obscure practices like the Lifting of the Panagia. All of this is worth investigating, reviving, enjoying, and sharing. But none of these are the Body and Blood of the Lord, none of them are sacramenta or mysteria, none of them have any other spiritual effect than blessing and inclusion. These are wonderful effects, graces to bestow upon the world, and for the curious, lonely or "hungry", who know nothing of Christianity and/or have no interest in pledging fidelity to Christ, these or practices based thereon could and should be sufficient.

Jesse raises an interesting point. If I had to bet, I would say that this resolution will not pass. We tend to make changes of this magnitude slowly. But I am fairly certain that the House of Bishops is nowhere near being of one mind on this issue. So I don't think they could do what the Canadian house as done.

Clint,

Your last post highlights the influence of non-Biblical incursions into the Eucharist. Jesus did not wear a "Latin" toga, he wore a prayer shawl.

I have nothing against Platonism and the Roman mystery cults per se, they just don't have anything to do with the Gospel, and are based on very different world views. Under them, Jesus has become little more than a puppet for populist Neoplatonism.

I agree that the Eucharist goes to the heart of our faith, which is why we get it right. Jesus or Empire, inclusion or exclusion? The saga continues. And it really is that simple.

Beyond even fidelity to Jesus versus Empire, we're really blowing it if we circle the wagons around the Eucharist. There is nothing more beautiful than a TEC parish with truly open communion, as I experienced when I lived back in the District, but now am back in a wagon circling area.

In that one act, we counteract everything else our neurotic society that is based around measuring up and proclaim the Gospel.
In an increasingly unchurched and spiritually apathetic generation, don't underestimate the power of Spirit using a truly open communion of drawing people to Herself. After all, its part of what led people to Jesus in the first place.

There have been too many good people who have become Christians or entered into the life of the church as a result- I think of Cynthia Bourgeault, the fabulous Episcopal author who was a Quaker(unbaptized) when she was first communed and experienced the Real Presence. We would have lost her gift to us potentially if we were operating in imperial mode then.

We should trust God and always err on the side of drawing our circle too big rather than too small.

Even those who wore prayer shawls knew that the sacrifice you offered and of which you partake tells everyone in the visible and invisible world about your relationships and priorities. You simply don't offer and/or eat of the sacrifice if you don't want a relationship with the god to whom the sacrifice is offered, and this includes YHWH. This is crucial here. The Eucharist is the Body and Blood of the Lord, who offered himself as a sacrifice - and this term does not have to be yoked to a particular theory of atonement - and who now, through this Mystery, offers us his flesh as food indeed and blood as drink indeed to continue to eat, and thus partake of this one sacrifice and the DIVINE RELATIONSHIP THIS SACRIFICE PROMISES, from now till the end of time. And because Christ is risen, it is the paradoxical "living sacrifice", which doesn't make any sense because sacrifices, by their nature, are dead things, but it is nonetheless true for all Christians.

This is not Neoplatonism, this has been with us from the very beginning, before
Scriptures were even written about it, because it shows up in Paul in a pretty much fully formed way, and in the Gospel of John too. And anyway Jesus embraced ideas of obvious Zoroastrian origin about the afterlife, judgment, and a coming savior, siding with the Pharisees (related word to the Parsees of India?) against the Sola Scriptura Sadduccees. So I guess by your reckoning, Josh, Jesus' ideas were tainted by all that Magian imperialist junk from the Eastern border of the ancestral lands. But I digress.

A deep study about sacrifices in the ancient world will clear up whole hunks of the New Testament, and puts a lot of strange ideas in perspective. Unfortunately the Protestant reformers didn't seem to understand any of this, and so we're left with memorialist communion services that mean little more than feel good fellowship around a communion table. Methodists are already doing this, offering a memorialist Eucharist to all and sundry. I like Methodists a lot, so y'all don't get mad at me every time I bring them up!

I want you all to know that I thought a lot about these comments today and it heightened my awareness and appreciation as I approached the communion rail this morning. It's been truly edifying.

In that one act, we counteract everything else our neurotic society that is based around measuring up and proclaim the Gospel.

Why? What does "open Communion" offer anybody, if it's nothing but a meal?

Right now, this is a big story because it's a break with capital "T" Tradition - it's "bold" and "daring," we're told repeatedly - but once it becomes "the Sunday meal for everybody," it will have perhaps even less significance to anybody outside the church than it currently does. It won't be anything except "radically egalitarian" - which is, I suppose, a modestly interesting thought, but hardly a unique idea in the world. "Eating with sinners" isn't anything shocking or bizarre to us; we eat all the time, anywhere, with anybody.

Why does it matter what one itinerant rabbi did 2,000 years ago? It's long-ago history, of about as much interest as any other 33-year span of history - but certainly no more.

BTW, what's the difference between the "Man-God" all of us antichrists believe in, and your "Christ who is continuously creating the whole of creation"? Why is our Jesus pathetic but yours fantastic? Inquiring minds are really quite curious about this....

I find it interesting that so many in this liberal forum are against the practice and yet the practice itself is widespread--almost commonplace in some areas, and already commonplace in others. Several bishop searches are going on and none of the interviews or reports I've seen have shown a single candidate willing to stop it and several approve/promote it. At least give this diocese credit for being honest enough to want to make the rules match reality. If so many are against it, why is it so pervasive? Do any of the clergy here work to avoid it? How do they do it while still welcoming newcomers? If nobody tries to stop it, if the rules have no influence on actual practices but are just a theological conversation piece, why not change the canons and be honest about church practices?

Chris H. Thanks for commenting but please sign you full name next time. ~ed.

(BTW, I don't think most people find it unusual that religious rites of any faith involve - well, faith, and therefore are mostly rather meaningless to those who don't adhere to that faith. It's kind of the norm, and has nothing at all to do with "measuring up."

I certainly wouldn't participate in the central religious rite of any other faith - particularly without knowing anything about it. I would expect that by my actions I might be giving assent to something I might not agree with. In fact, I think I'd find it rather a smarmy come-on if the justification given later is "Well, we get some really great converts this way!"

I can never figure out how people who are often incredibly particular about what they'll say in their own church services - refusing to recite the Creed, for instance, because they don't assent to this clause or that one - can turn around and expect other people to willingly participate in something they know nothing about. How does this work?)

Barbara, I love you but nothing ever comes of direct encounter between us.

Clint, I remember having a similar conversation a while back when someone (maybe it was you?) was going on about the "multivalent" meaning in our prayer book, when really what is there is mostly God as superpowerful king who needs to kill himself in order to forgive us.

Then, as now, the "elitist" position, which is certainly what a mystery-cult type sacrifice is, brings an extraordinary depth of knowledge to the Eucharist that someone like Miss Quaker who experienced God in communion and became a priest is not going to have, yet she would have been turned away in your scenario.

This, to me, is choosing between Jesus and Empire. It is obvious what Jesus did- he ate with everyone and viewed his simple meals as spiritually on par with the temple's highly proscribed system of sacrifice.

As for recreating his sacrifice, the Cross should have been once and for all an end to the age of expiatory sacrifice, so even if we are celebrating his sacrifice, we should be celebrating an END to that way of experiencing God and the Divine, as liberation to live in a direct and immediate way with God.

I understand that Catholic teaching makes the Eucharist into much more than this, and there is much in Catholic tradition I love, but this is not one of those elements. You can choose between "preserving" the sanctity of the cracker, which is what I believe the body and blood revert back too when we attempt to divorce Jesus from his own meal, or we can follow the example of Jesus and throw away all pretense that we are "protecting" God or people from grace and follow his celebratory, deeply Jewish and profoundly inclusive example, once again allowing the elements to be agents of encounter with the living God.

(BTW, I don't think most people find it unusual that religious rites of any faith involve - well, faith, and therefore are merely mostly empty, confusing rituals to those who don't adhere to that faith. It's kind of the norm, and has nothing at all to do with "measuring up."

I wouldn't participate in the central religious rite of any other faith - particularly without knowing anything about it. I would expect that by my actions I might be giving assent to something I might not agree with. In fact, I think I'd find it rather a smarmy come-on if the justification given later is "Well, we get some really great converts this way!"

I can never figure out how people who are often incredibly particular about what they'll say in their own church services - refusing to recite the Creed, for instance, because they don't assent to this clause or that one - can turn around and expect other people to willingly participate in something they know nothing about. How does that work?

BTW, to an earlier point: it can and does happen that an "invitation" to Communion can be viewed as a sort of obligation that people feel they can't turn down without being rude; I've seen this happen personally.)

And as I said before, it is precisely a highly sacramental Eucharist coupled with open communion that is TEC's unique gift to the world in this time and place. A radically open, yet sacramental Eucharist continues the Jesus Tradition like no other practice I am familiar with in Western religion, and is truly transformative to people who participate, in my experience.

Jesus broke himself for us, again and again, pouring himself out wantonly (like the women with the alabaster jar)in his extremely brief ministry, yet somehow in his simple, self-wasting ways people like Paul discerned the Shape of the Cosmos. As Cynthia has said, most spiritual systems are based on the "preservation" and protection of spiritual energy- with Jesus, the spiritual dynamic is blowing all of your energy, kenotically, again and again, and finding, like the women with jar of oil, that miraculously, God is still there as living water flowing out of us.

We dishonor our Teacher if we blatantly ignore the heart of his practice and adopt a meal practice more similar to what is congenial to Empire and its desire to "protect" and "preserve" the Holy, whether Roman, Byzantium, British, or American.

Christianity alone is inclusive. Baptism, which is open to all, is the avenue to this inclusiveness, but it comes with expectations and commandments. It's a covenant with God, promises we make to Him (first and foremost) and to/with our communities. There is no need to water down the sacraments to be "inclusive". This will not grow the church if that is what the idea of this is. It will separate us from the rest of the greater Church just as those "other" things did.

In Christ there is eternity, He who is begotten of The Father before the world began, the Agent of our creation, in Him we live and move and have our being. The Mass is the expression of salvation history before and beyond where we are now, into which our voices join with the angels, archangels, and all the company of heaven, all who are in the mind of God. Therefore our creation, our redemption, everything is where God is, as God is with us where we are now in time. We can acknowledge God at any time, enter Communion anytime, because in God we have already entered communion - predestined before time. In this same way we join in the Nativity, earthly ministry, death Resurrection, Ascension, and join in Hope for the Consummation. At any point the Grace of God is available, and not just those with "special knowledge," or those who passed the test of those who would like a tighter control of God's grace, with themselves holding the reins,but to anyone who asks with open heart and pure intention. And dear Bill, with every slight, every belittling of another, be they Christian, or a non-believer, anyone, you belittle the image of God, and drive those nails just a little deeper into the flesh of Christ -- your sister or brother. The Communion is a Communion with God, yes, but also with His Body the Church. Why would we stand in the way? If the Communion is "ours" to give, and not Christ's, who would want it anyway? If the Church follows our image, it is just a fetish idol. Isn't that the reason Jesus was betrayed, killed, and crucified? He didn't fit the stereotype expected in a Messiah? which is why the Holy Communion went from being for "The People of God" to include those not of the faith, the uncircumsized...

I think even though our HoB might not be of one mind on this issue..(are they one mind on anything? lol) but I do think the majority of them would support the measure that Canadian bishops did.

Then, as now, the "elitist" position, which is certainly what a mystery-cult type sacrifice is, brings an extraordinary depth of knowledge to the Eucharist that someone like Miss Quaker who experienced God in communion and became a priest is not going to have, yet she would have been turned away in your scenario.

She's not in any sense "turned away." She's absolutely welcome - as welcome as anybody else in the room. We would love to have her join, anytime - and at her Baptism, we'll all formally vow to support her in her faith life.

Baptism is not a barrier; it's a Sacrament and a means of bringing people into community with others, in a a web of relationships, including sponsors and Godparents. It's a portal into a good way of life.

In any case: nobody was ever "policing the altar rails." Nobody ever checked any papers; that is a fiction - still another straw man. And, as a matter of fact, I suspect she must have given the matter some thought, since Quakers do not do Sacraments in the first place.

Josh: You seem to be very confused about what kind of church this is. We are not a sola scriptura church, we interpret along with the tradition we've inherited from our Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant brothers and sisters. We're also not a "New Testament" church, constantly reinventing ourselves to live up to some imagined ideal of a "pure" church, but we strive to carry on the Apostolic and especially Anglican Tradition as it's passed down to us. The Fathers, Councils, Creeds and classic liturgies are part of us.

Why is it our job, here and now, to suddenly abandon that? I'll ask again, what else should we drop for the sake of winning converts? Are we really converting anybody in that case? Or just converting to them?

From what I can tell, the churches that thrive the most aren't those that compromise their beliefs for fear of causing offense, but those that celebrate it, and strive to make newcomers familiar with the what and why of it.

What kept going through my mind this morning as we prepared for communion, what's wrong with letting visitors be visitors? Why should we expect inquirers to participate at the same level we do? It's not as if all of us participate at the same level, either. I'm just a lay bookworm; you're not going to see me leading the choir anytime soon. Let people inquire, learn, grow, and convert on their own. As I've said before, leave it to their own conscience--it's not the priest's job to discern your conscience or faith for you.

Another thing: Jesus was radically inclusive in his invitations. But he also made demands. Strong, even harsh demands. He told the rich man to give up everything he had. He told people to abandon their families and work. He told people to walk extra miles and take up their crosses. He said if people want to be saved, they have to be born again in water and spirit. He said the publican who prayed, "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner" was more blessed than the Pharisee who only thanked God. The Father of the Prodigal didn't shove a hunk of meat in his mouth, he got him dressed and prepared the feast.

He didn't just embrace people as they are, but as God intended them to be. He didn't tell the sick, the blind, or the possessed, "You're fine the way you are." He changed them. He told us to prepare, to be watchful, to repent, and to follow him.

- Alex Scott

Baptized Trinitarian Christians (who have examined themselves) may receive, all others may come up to receive a blessing. Who is being excluded here??? Oh yeah, no one.

"Your last post highlights the influence of non-Biblical incursions into the Eucharist. Jesus did not wear a "Latin" toga, he wore a prayer shawl."

Don't look now, but you're doing it, too. The illustrations of James Tissot in my big family Bible notwithstanding, Our Lord did not wear a "prayer shawl" because no such thing existed. The word tallit literally means a cloak, and anciently that's what it was. It had tzitzit attached to the corners, but it was a garment without religious significance, larger than the modern tallit, and served as cloak and blanket. It only started to morph into the "prayer shawl" after the expulsion of the Jews by the Romans, when Jews found themselves in cultures that did not use four-cornered garments on a regular basis. In order to observe the biblical commandment to attach tzitzit to their clothes, the custom of wearing a smaller tallit during prayer developed.

Why is this important in the context of our discussion? Because it shows that even when people think they're getting back to the "historical Jesus," they may in fact be projecting their own ideas back onto him. That, and I'm a terrible pedant. :-)

I don't suppose you would consider showing a little more respect for the feelings and beliefs of your fellow Episcopalians by refraining from denigrating Catholic teaching regarding the Eucharist, would you? The "sanctity of the cracker" remark was pretty offensive, at least to me. Not only would you be showing fraternal charity, but I can't imagine that anyone adhering to the traditional view of the Eucharist is going to be convinced of the rightness of your position on CWOB if they think you hold their beliefs about the Sacrament in contempt.

And as I said before, it is precisely a highly sacramental Eucharist coupled with open communion that is TEC's unique gift to the world in this time and place. A radically open, yet sacramental Eucharist continues the Jesus Tradition like no other practice I am familiar with in Western religion, and is truly transformative to people who participate, in my experience.

What does it mean to be "highly sacramental"? A Sacrament, in our tradition, is "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace."

You seem to be saying that in TEC this sign is a "more intense sign," somehow. What does this mean? How can "open Communion" as "table fellowship" (a perhaps totally meaningless phrase in our culture, and something that can certainly not be derived from the rite itself) convey this "intense sign" to somebody who's just walked in through the doors?

What is the sign, and what is the grace? What grace is, or could possibly be, conveyed to somebody who, perhaps, doesn't know anything about Jesus or his story at all?

Doesn't this view of the Eucharist depend heavily on literally years of learning about, and absorbing the implications of, the faith yourself?

At any point the Grace of God is available, and not just those with "special knowledge," or those who passed the test of those who would like a tighter control of God's grace, with themselves holding the reins,but to anyone who asks with open heart and pure intention.

Yay! More straw men!

Nobody here has said a thing about "wanting tighter control of God's grace" or needing "special knowledge."

I admit that I've said I think some knowledge would be good before involving people in strange religious rites - or before having them give assent in a liturgical rite to something they know nothing about. Perhaps a little something like preparation for Baptism, maybe.

"Special knowledge"? I don't really think so. I'd call it "de-mystification," myself....

This conversation has branched off into some particular byways that some may find helpful. But it seems to me that conflating the Eucharist with the other table-fellowship meals Jesus shared is fundamentally misreading the text. And I say that not just because the church came to that understanding as it crafted the gospels. Looking to the Corinthian correspondence, it's clear that Paul needs to distinguish ordinary meals from the extraordinary thing that is the Eucharist, in which Christ "our Passover" is present and consumed. The "our" is important -- this is not a universal event, but a family meal. All are invited to this meal, but that invitation takes the form of baptism. Baptism is not an obstacle, but a step in the process which culminates in communion.

I'm nor particularly fond of analogies, but will hazard one. None of us are native-born to the realm of God, though each of us has the capacity to become "naturalized." The process of naturalization involves baptism. And once baptized, we become citizens with rights and responsibilities. Far from "empire" this is God's democracy, to which any and all are invited, and are called to respond to the invitation.

I think Josh has it backwards: it is not "protection" of the eucharist that robs it of its importance (not that I agree that protection is the issue) it is the assumption that Jesus and/or the early church did not know what it was doing when calling for all nations to be baptized, and then to celebrate the feast. Transforming the sacred celebration of the body of which one has become a member through baptism into just another fellowship meal or opportunity not to make people feel excluded (not that they are) seems to me to be what robs both the baptized and the seeker of the value the eucharist holds.

" And dear Bill, with every slight, every belittling of another, be they Christian, or a non-believer, anyone, you belittle the image of God, and drive those nails just a little deeper into the flesh of Christ -- your sister or brother. "

That was my point exactly. Humanity's sins - mine, your, and ours - crucified Christ. The Crucifixion isn't an event remote in time we can separate ourselves from.

"The Communion is a Communion with God, yes, but also with His Body the Church. Why would we stand in the way?"

But Holy Communion is not the way that communion with the Body of Christ, the Church, is established in the first place. If someone wants to be joined to the Church of Christ the way to do that is to be baptized.

"If the Church follows our image, it is just a fetish idol. Isn't that the reason Jesus was betrayed, killed, and crucified? He didn't fit the stereotype expected in a Messiah?"

Well, no: Christ was crucified and rose again "for our redemption" (Eucharistic Prayers I & II), as "a perfect sacrifice for the whole world" (Euch.. Prayer A), he "died for us" (EP B), "to fulfill [God's] purpose he gave himself up to death; and, rising from the grave, destroyed death, and made the whole creation new" (EP D). Christ was not a hapless victim of First Century politics. The crucifixion is not something that could have been avoided if only the Jewish leaders of his time had been a little more open-minded about what to look for in a Messiah. No one took Our Lord's life from him - he lay it down of his own free will.

Exactly,Bill, because...

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”-John 18:36

I object in every possible way that focusing on the properties of the cracker is the "traditional" view of the Eucharist. This view has been used to exclude people since the beginning. The world in its entirety is magical, because it is created on a moment by moment by the living Christ, who cannot be contained in our communion box nor any other. Pretending that he can goes against everything that Jesus ever said and did, and represents the worst excess of Catholic tradition (as Protestants turning the Bible into God represents their greatest excess).

That is really what this whole conversation is about, the purported ability of priests to dam up or contain Jesus, who is not yours or ours to dam, as the Protestants rightly pointed out.

If you feel offended it is because the limits of your own theology lead you to feel so offended, as if the living God is beholden to you, to I, or to anyone in any tradition, and can be brokered by you or I in wafer form, by sprinkling water on the
head, etc. These are outward signs of inward grace, and you seem to be getting it the other way around. The primary sacrament is and always has been Creation and Christ's living presence in all parts of it, which all beings have IMMEDIATE and UNMITIGATED access to during every second of their life, as Jesus taught and exemplified. A Eucharist that does not build on the radically egalitarian jesus and the reality of the Cosmic Christ is not worthy of being brought forward into the future.

If you contradict the heart of Jesus' own table practice and message in your Eucharistic theology, whether it is part of "tradition" or "orthodoxy" or whatever, you are operating out of a spirit that is not in line with the spirit of Jesus, however "christian" it might appear.

I am tired of the way the church is consistently the Spirit of Jesus' own worst enemy. If the church can't get even its basic message straight then it ought to pack up shop, because it has nothing to offer, as Bede Griffiths wisely said.

Sounds more like the "spirit of man" rather than that of the Savior.

Thanks Josh for speaking about the tendency we have to try to contain God and our worry about protecting God. And thanks everyone who is trying to express opinion without rancor. Might also take a look at the item further on downstream about the "none church"

If so many are against it, why is it so pervasive? Do any of the clergy here work to avoid it? How do they do it while still welcoming newcomers? If nobody tries to stop it, if the rules have no influence on actual practices but are just a theological conversation piece, why not change the canons and be honest about church practices?

Good questions. As far as I can tell, there's been a movement to "change the facts on the ground" over the course of the past, maybe, 10 years. General Convention has consistently voted against CWOB - but priests (and at least some congregations I know of) decided on their own initiative to ignore the vote there.

I don't think it's as widespread as you think it is (although in some areas it is very common, it's true).

I don't think anybody really thought much about it; it seems pretty carelessly done, to me. No thought seems to have been given, at any rate, to what I see as some of the most basic issues. I think it's problematic ethically to involve others in religious rites they may not have even the smallest knowledge of, but I seem to be alone in that. Apparently this is not really thought of as a "religious rite" but as "a meal" ("religion" is an unfashionable word and idea these days, too), so that's one possible answer.

I can't figure out, either, why it seems OK to send people to the altar rail for Communion without even a remote idea of how to participate. I mean, everybody who's advocating this was taught this very basic, simple thing: what happens during the rite, what to say, what to do, etc. - things everybody would like to know when they're participating in something we claim is "holy."

Why do people think, I wonder, that everybody knows these things going in? How can you instruct people to go to the altar rail and just give assent to whatever the priest says? That, to me, is really creepy (if it's not unethical) - but I've seen it happen, just like that.

Sara Miles always comes up in these conversations, and I think her book has possibly influenced lots of people.

Personally, I find it all rather patronizing, on the order of, "Trust us, we know what's good for you. You don't need to know or worry about what's happening."

I do understand the impulse, and actually have leaned towards favoring it in the past, but I think the problems outweigh the benefits. And we end up seeing too many contradictory arguments - like the conceptual problem in the Resolution itself, inviting people into the "perilous" nature of communion without informing them of it beforehand. (This same problem with contradictory claims often came up from the anti-gay side during the homosexuality wars, which to me is always a sign of some problem in the argument.)

And yes: there are parishes who simply obey the canons and offer Communion to any baptized Christian. In my experience, these are mostly Anglo-Catholic parishes. I have respect for these parishes and their leaders, who obey the canons even when they don't want to. If this were some kind of real emergency, or people were really being hurt in some way, then obviously: disobey. But neither of those things are happening.

"I object in every possible way that focusing on the properties of the cracker is the 'traditional' view of the Eucharist."

In that case, you apparently don't know much about the "traditional" view of the Eucharist. You've expressed nothing but contempt for Tradition, in any case. Why should the church bow to your will?

Again, what else are we supposed to give up for the sake of evangelism? Why not evangelize by promoting our actual faith and practices? I'm worried stuff like this will show the world we're ashamed of them.

I prefer the view of this blogger, based on his own surveys:

"The young adults I talk to are not looking for easy answers, vague spiritualities, dumbed-down theology, slipshod worship, therapeutic relativism, private faith, or a mono-cultural God. They are desperately searching for a Church that offers an encounter with the Holy that transforms, convicts, inspires, and draws them in.

"They are searching for a Church that demands their best. Whether it is in mission, worship, theology, or daily life, they want a Church that is relevant not because it tries to tell them only what they want to hear but because it offers them a vision of the Holy and its transforming power. A Church that reaches for and preaches relevance is a Church that makes itself irrelevant. The quest for relevance is the mark of quiescent extinction."

http://thecuratesdesk.org/2011/11/17/will-the-church-be-alright-of-relevance-and-generational-shifts/

How does setting aside our tradition, and especially our rich theology of baptism and communion, promote a sense of the holy? How does it challenge people? How does it show that we take our faith seriously? The very thing I like about the liturgy and theology is that it's not limited to this space and time, but joins me with the entire communion, not just now, but throughout the world and throughout history. CWOB seems too closely tied to a present-day, if not even a 20th century, viewpoint.

And quit saying "cracker." What is this, a Chick Tract? If it is just a cracker, why is it so important to you, anyway?

(For the record, I am fully in favor of switching to leavened bread. The wafers are not as ancient or essential as the sacrament itself. On the few occasions I have taken leavened bread as communion, I've gotten more out of it.)

-Alex Scott

(Also: it seem crystal clear to me that the Biblical witness on the topic of the Sacraments is: talk to people. Answer their questions, when they ask, and help them. Then come the Sacraments. The Word is very important, both in faith and in the world - and it's clearly, to me, about communication between people - and relationships.

Also clear to me is that - far from the early church being about "Empire" - CWOB wouldn't have happened in those days for the simple reason that you could get killed for it. The ethics of situation demanded that people take great care with and for newcomers. It was doubly important to talk to people and get their consent about this, before putting them in that kind of danger.

And it's clear, too, that the whole system, in our Prayer Book, really is about giving people support in their spiritual lives. That's why the sponsors at Baptism - and why we, the congregation, vow to uphold people and support them. I think it's right here where we ought to put lots of energy in the next few years.

CWOB can leave people without any sort of spiritual support - and I think this is wrong, too. People should not be trying to "go it alone in spiritual matters."

So, those are just some of the issues, to me.)

(Also: it seem crystal clear to me that the Biblical witness on the topic of the Sacraments is: talk to people. Answer their questions, when they ask, and help them. Then come the Sacraments. The Word is very important, both in faith and in the world - and it's clearly, to me, about communication between people - and relationships.

Also clear to me is that - far from the early church being about "Empire" - CWOB wouldn't have happened in those days for the simple reason that you could get killed for it. The ethics of situation demanded that people take great care with and for newcomers. It was doubly important to talk to people and get their consent about this, before putting them in that kind of danger.

And it's clear, too, that the whole system, in our Prayer Book, really is about giving people support in their spiritual lives. That's why the sponsors at Baptism - and why we, the congregation, vow to uphold people and support them. I think it's right here where we ought to put lots of energy in the next few years.

CWOB can leave people without any sort of spiritual support - and I think this is wrong, too. People should not be trying to "go it alone in spiritual matters."

So, those are just some of the issues, to me.)

(You could get killed for being a Christian, I meant above, not killed for CWOB!

Sorry about the double posts - I keep getting error messages that tell me to re-post!)

So, Josh, I'm taking that rant as a, "No, I will not treat your beliefs, or even you, with any respect whatsoever." You really ought to read up on Eucharistic theology, though, because you seem to have gotten most of your views about the Church's teaching from Chick tracts. You take straw man stereotypes of Eucharistic theology and then knock them down, and throw in a few choice words about my spiritual state while you're at it. This is not the way to have any sort of reasoned discussion on anything.

Final thought,

Tradition is not an unmitigated good. In fact, a strong case could be made that Christian "orthodoxy" has caused much more harm to the world than good.

I've already articulated what I think the worst excess of Catholic tradition is- transubstantiation in an exclusivist context, such as being represented here,and turning the Bible into God from the Protestant end. Both posit a "closed loop of salvation" that are alien to the Spirit of Jesus.

I am with TEC because there are people in it like the ones who wrote the Oregonian declaration, who get it, not that I have to justify myself to you.

"I've already articulated what I think the worst excess of Catholic tradition is- transubstantiation in an exclusivist context, such as being represented here..."

Exactly who on this thread has advocated transubstantiation, for crying out loud?

"And yes: there are parishes who simply obey the canons and offer Communion to any baptized Christian. In my experience, these are mostly Anglo-Catholic parishes."

My (Anglo-Catholic) parish certainly does; there's a notice in the service leaflet to the effect that baptized Christians who have been admitted to the Holy Communion in their own Churches are welcome to take Communion. I believe there's also a note saying that if you aren't taking Communion you're still welcome to come to the rail for a blessing.

Barbara, I just reread some posts and noticed for the first time that Reverend Bourgeault must have "given it some thought" since she was a Quaker- that is exactly what DIDN'T happen- Spirit caught her by surprise when she was communed and the inadequacy of her Quaker faith (to her at least) was made apparent.

This is precisely the kind of thing that can and does happen when precious "Tradition" (and by tradition, at least on this thread, what we mean is predominantly Western "orthodoxy" heavily shaped by Neoplatonism, with no feminine collaboration, and with the metaphysics of Jesus' entry and exit from the world paramount, at the expense of what He actually said and did and with complete disregard for the Judaic basis of the faith) is broken with in deference to the spirit of jesus, and God is allowed to be God without our permission or attempt to barricade Her.

I'm all for Tradition- but that includes ALL of the voices that have shaped our living Tradition, not merely the ones approved by various empires that are obsessed with who's in and out (I love Hildegard here- up is down and down is up!) (or Jesus).

If a doctrine got the stamp of an Empire, past or present, that is reason in and of itself to at least consider that it may be theologically suspect.

"Also clear to me is that - far from the early church being about "Empire" - CWOB wouldn't have happened in those days for the simple reason that you could get killed for it."

It is ironic that doctrine forged in the days of persecution (one of the earliest references to the Eucharist being only for the Baptized is from St Justin Martyr!) are being painted as being the product of "Empire."

Right,

If you read Justin Martyr, you will see where he appeals for Rome's acceptance by comparing Jesus to a Roman God-King, likening the virgin birth to that of an Olympic Hero. I can only imagine the pain and terror of the early church as the fought to survive against Rome, but a lot of the Real Jesus (the historical Jesus) became shrouded by what was to become orthodoxy, and Rome's sudden about face and demand that Christians be unified around Constantine's anti-Christ vision, and our being thrown out of the synagogue and therefore having no foundation other than Greece and Roman on which to build on Jesus, certainly contributed.

The history of the Church has not been pretty.

And now you're claiming to speak for women, too? Where are these "voices" you're hearing? Tradition is full of Catherines and Monicas and Macrinas and Teresas and Hildegards and Brigids and Lucias who are held as shining examples, and who all subscribed to the catholic faith.

And "at the expense of what he actually said and did"? Have you been reading the same Church Fathers I have? They constantly refer to Christ's commands as paramount. The whole reason monasticism was invented was to better follow him. Did St. Francis reject his tradition to serve the poor? Of course not! Did St. Lawrence reject it when he got grilled (literally!) for revealing the poor, hungry, and sick to the Roman Emperor as the wealth of the Church? Of course not!

Look at some of the Athonite monks like St. Silouan, or hermits like Seraphim of Sarov, or "Fr. Maximos" in Kyriacos Markides' books. They all uphold their sacred Tradition and have cultivated over their lives a deep, mystical love for the image of God in everybody.

Tradition is full of people showing how the sacraments as they have been received help us to better follow Jesus, to know Jesus, and to develop Love not just as a vague emotion, not just as social action, but as a deep, mystical reality. Maybe you should look at what they have to say before you criticize.

Frankly, if it bothers you so much to have a Tradition with "the stamp of Empire," why do you associate yourself with a church that explicitly claims continuity with that same Tradition? This isn't just about what you like or dislike, but what the Church is and how it's structured. What "Real Jesus" are you talking about, when all we have is the Gospels gathered and preserved by the very same Tradition?

And I'm afraid you're going to have to help me out here. Where do you see Justin Martyr's appeal to Rome? You may be reading more into it than is actually there.

Bear in mind, I'm very suspicious of any suggestion that the Church started going astray from Day 1. Especially when it comes with the hint that you've got it all figured out.

- Alex Scott

"If you read Justin Martyr, you will see where he appeals for Rome's acceptance by comparing Jesus to a Roman God-King, likening the virgin birth to that of an Olympic Hero."

Of course, a comparison is not an equivalence. Justin's approach to pagan mythology doesn't seem that different from CS Lewis' "good dreams" idea about that same mythology.

Of course, I imagine that Lewis is someone else who simply got it all wrong, too...

Josh your comments make this woman's heart skip with joy -- Thanks

Alex,

No need to get ruffled- I already told you I didn't care what you thought about my participation in TEC.

But do you honestly think the Hildegards and Julians have had as much impact on Tradition (as a source of authority) as the Augustines and Anselms? If so we are coming from two very different places. The people you mention find no real presence in the 39 articles, for example. We do not see the Nicene Creed putting forward the Greatest Commandment as the lynchpin of its metaphysics.

I agree that we cannot start from 33AD to find tradition- but we must allow Jesus to be the standard of orthodoxy and include far more voices in what counts as Tradition. If we had done that all along, I doubt very seriously we would even be having this discussion about communion.

My point, Bill, is that a spiritual system that bears little relationship to Jesus' experience of God namely, various variations on the Neoplatonic theme, has had far too great an influence on our practice, and this influence is directly relevant to the modern question of Open Table.

It is true I'm not a great fan of Lewis's writings, but I love and respect him as a brother and also as a soul with a longing for God and an adventurous, mythos oriented spirit.

OK I've said about all I fell lead to say.

As one of the founders of St. Gregory's, San Francisco that figured very early in this discovery (in an article in this May's issue of Anglican Theological Review, I tell the story of how we began offering communion to all explicitly in 1982), and as one of several who have written about this practice - and yes we can put together a useful bibliography - I can say that many considered carefully what we were doing, weighed scripture, listened to tradition, thought about sacramental theology, and, like other BIG changes in church practice and scripture interpretation - married clergy in the West, ending slavery, ordaining women, acknowledging the genuine vocations of LGBT clergy, wondered, worried, and weighed radical change and how it would or could be expressive of faithfulness - or whether faithfulness demanded risking venturing forward into a change we might be wrong about.

Bill, a long ways upstream you suggested I was raising unpreparedness or unworthiness as a straw man. No, I didn't mean to set up a straw man with arguing unworthiness or
unpreparedness. And I think any focus on OUR hospitality misses the
point of Jesus' prophetic sign in all his messianic meal-making. The
person who "doesn't belong" or isn't prepared or qualified makes the
feast a sign and presence of God's embrace of all. The only term of
our being welcomed is that God hasn't set terms and in Christ draws
the whole world to God's self.

and Barbara, the question you raise about risking death to include those deemed unworthy or unprepared IS at the heart of this as far I can tell. One thing that influenced our decision at St. Gregory's profoundly in 1982 was that we were reading Norman Perrin's foundational work Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus in adult study group. Perrin argued (and many, my impression is most) Gospel scholars now agree) that Jesus' offended the religious establishment by enacting Isaiah's prophetic sign of a God's messianic banquet welcoming all. An unofficial rabbi and itinerant prophet proclaiming the presence of God's feast and inviting himself to the house of a notorious, unprepared, unrepentant sinner like Zacchaeus (for example) isn't a story of how nice Jesus was to people who were misunderstood and maligned. A tax collector was someone who was getting rich by collaborating with Roman occupation and who was getting rich off his own people's suffering. And yes, Zacchaeus in the story repents and makes a change of life, but that's not the condition of Jesus feasting with him, it's the consequence of an open invitation. There is a serious question of here of how the Gospels present their Eucharistic theology (and where the synoptics follow John in embedding it in other pieces of narrative in addition to the Last Supper).

I do hope we can listen to one another, listen for passion and love of God in voices we disagree with. And I do hear people on both sides of this heated disagreement asking 'just how do we follow Jesus?'

"My point, Bill, is that a spiritual system that bears little relationship to Jesus' experience of God..."

Josh, doesn't it strike you as at least a little ironic that you claim the ability to have apparently direct knowledge of what Jesus' experience of God is and how specific doctrine stacks up against the "Spirit of Jesus," all while vilifying the bulk of Tradition?

"Bill, a long ways upstream you suggested I was raising unpreparedness or unworthiness as a straw man."

I didn't mean to single you out, Father - several other people have made the claim. It seems that the "unworthiness" of the unbaptized is one of the main objections that many proponents of CWOB expect opponents to raise, although I've not heard anyone in favor of the canonical discipline suggest it as a reason to oppose CWOB.

This persistent assertion raises some interesting questions, but doesn't actually address the concerns that someone on the side of first Baptism, then Communion (FBTC, if you will) actually has. It says more about the quality of the debate than it does the topic under discussion.

Bill, the direct experience of God is our birthright as human beings and our responsibility to cultivate as Christians. The Spirit of Jesus is not contained by Tradition, at best Tradition can lead us more deeply into it. Christ's sheep here His voice, as I am sure you do, but that voice is not limited to traditionalist Anglo-Catholics.

Spirit is not a notion or conception, She blows wherever she wants to, and where She wants to blow is EVERYWHERE, and according to Hildegard, She is the "newest thing in the Universe." In fact, the only thing that can keep Her out is if we refuse to let Her in.

The living presence of Jesus, the ever-present, Eternal Wisdom of God, as Eckhart said, is "a great underground river that can never be stopped and can never be dammed."

The Spirit of Jesus will blow right past any institution, no matter how grand, authoritative, or essential we think it to be, including your parish, including my parish, including the whole of the Christian tradition- because the Church is and always has been a mystical body, and the people are the Church.

At best, our institutions can help us be transparent to Spirit, at worst, they can tell Her where to go jump. We all have the responsibility to decide where we hear Her voice around issues such as Open table; that's part of what makes us Anglican.

"that voice is not limited to traditionalist Anglo-Catholics."

If that's supposed to be directed to me, it really is a stretch to call me a traditionalist Anglo-Catholic. I'm sure Bishop Iker wouldn't consider an out gay man in favor of priesting women a traditionalist, for example.

The irony I referred to wasn't that God talks to you, but that you hear God's voice and know exactly what the Spirit of Jesus is doing and thinking at any given moment while at the same time you reject Tradition. After all, we wouldn't even know about the existence of Jesus if it weren't for the Church and Tradition (under which heading I place Scripture, too). Reading some of your comments gives the impression you think no one heard God's voice before, say, 1983, and if they say they did they're lying in the name of "Empire." You come off quite as dogmatic as any traditionalist Anglo-Catholic (or Evangelical, for that matter).

If we followed some of the logic related to the sacraments expressed on this thread, and who can participate fully, I suppose women would be excluded from the Sacrament of Holy Orders, Gay people from the Sacrament of Marriage, Only those who are Baptised and then later Confirmed would be allowed to participate in Holy Communion...There would be no new revelation from God, no evolving revelation, or understanding?

Bill: Thank you. I've said repeatedly that my preference is to leave it up to the conscience of the one taking communion, and to offer blessings (or the antidoron?) to anyone who doesn't. If they're unbaptized and they take it, fine. No one's harmed. It's an opportunity to teach about our sacraments and invite to baptism. If they don't, again, no harm. They may not believe in it, or may genuinely find themselves unready for any reason. They may just be visiting. Fine. No harm. They can also be reached and invited to baptism. Maybe they were unbaptized, but communicated at their old church. In that case, they take it in good faith. Or they may choose not to.

It's okay not to participate, and okay not to approve of everything we do, especially if it's something we as a whole have always done.

Heck, I'm not even comfortable when they announce the canonical position before communion. I'm fine with "Take them in remembrance that Christ died for you..." At my old Catholic Church, there was just an card saying who could receive Communion (and please, try to be generous to their understanding of Communion), and the priest would announce he was offering a blessing.

Josh: You're absolutely right that we can't say at all where Christ isn't. Even someone as Orthodox as Kallistos Ware can say that everyone has the light of the Logos within them. I think we would do better to promote our Tradition as the way we have found to develop a relationship with Christ, showing how so many before us have reached God the same way. We already offer a via media between Catholic and Protestant views; I simply think CWOB takes us too far to the extreme. And we're already very inclusive toward other denominations; we never claim we have an exclusive monopoly on the Gospel.

In all the heat of this argument (which I regret), all I really feel is that the canon is fine the way it is. I don't see the harm or the urgency.

I refer back to the blog I linked earlier; if you go back to parts 1 and 2, it presents data that shows that, as much as we like to show how nice and inclusive we are, we're winding up with youth who believe less in God and do less good in the world than the general population! It also has several links showing that young adult Episcopalians tend to prefer more ancient, mysterious, and challenging expressions of faith and worship. Maybe I'm biased, but I'm a young adult, too, and I agree completely.

- Alex Scott

Chris H has raised an excellent point. The canon in question is widely disregarded. When you have candidates for bishop saying that they'd rather face presentment than enforce this canon, you have the makings of a crisis of legitimacy. So if we aren't going to change this canon (and I have no firm opinion on whether we should or not and have found this back and forth to be fascinating), what are we going to do about the fact that is so widely disregarded?

Alex, I don't think we could duplicate EO antidoron without also changing the way we prepare and present the Gifts - part of the appeal is that it came from the same bread offered at the proskimidia. But there's a Western custom of blessing ordinary bread not used at the offertory that survives (or did until recently) in France; it's called pain bénit and serves much the same function as antidoron. I'm not sure that it would be a terribly popular custom if it were reintroduced, though.

Jim, is it really important to remove all disregarded canons and rubrics? When was the last time the Disciplinary Rubrics on p 409 were followed, to anyone's knowledge? Or Canon I of Title II, "Of the Due Celebration of Sunday"? That's certainly not enforced as far as I know.

Doesn't anyone here care about the relationships with the greater Church? Have we not isolated ourselves enough already??

Another thing, Jim - this resolution isn't about the simple removal of an unobserved canon, but about it's replacement by one that prescribes the opposite effect.

Bill: Well, it's a thought.

Argh, so sorry yet again for not signing above. It's obviously too late at night for this.

- Alex Scott

I am not going to take the time to read all of the comments because, well, it's late.

I'll just say this. Anytime anyone, anywhere, holds their hands out to me and asks me to give them the body of Christ, I'm going to do it. I don't care if they're baptized, or if they're in a state of grace, or if I have the right kind of bread, or if I'm ordained (gasp).

Maybe that makes me a bad Episcopalian or a bad Christian. Maybe my bishop should bring me up on charges. I'll do it anyway because the world and my city are spiritually starved. And because the body of Christ is a foretaste of the heavenly banquet.

The people I work with are uninterested in the finer points of theology. They are interested in finding meaning in a shallow world.

Bill,

I didn't make myself clear with this - "Bill, a long ways upstream you suggested I was raising unpreparedness or unworthiness as a straw man."

It's not that I'm singling out strong advocates for the familiar order and claiming that they're unique in looking for ways to achieve readiness or worthiness to receive. I'm saying that Jesus meal practice takes on a predictably human, persistent attempt to ready ourselves for God and claim legitimacy in our access to God and risks his life challenging those terms completely and ultimately - in Judaism, Christianity, or any other practice. He goes so far as to identify himself completely with the ungodly and unprepared. As St. Paul puts it, "he made the sinless one into sin" and he died as one accursed outside the city gates - that, by the way is the baptism the synoptics have Jesus talking about - not looking back to his baptism in Jordan or exhorting his followers to be baptized (and I will note that 'The Great Commission' a poorly attested addition and arguably late addition to Matthew's Gospel). Jesus question is whether we're willing to be baptized with the baptism with which he's baptized, which is the complete identification with unprepared, condemned sinners. How do we practice that. I take it that's the point of the George Herbert poem I quoted. That's one of the reasons Gregory of Nyssa suggests that the Body of Christ is all humanity. And that, I'd suggest is the body that of which St. Paul speaks warning that our failure to discern it puts everything at risk.

And what I'm hearing Josh speaking for is the consistent minority voice within the tradition - the voice that says that God's work in Jesus and the continuing work of the Spirit is tearing down EVERYTHING that divides humanity and the continuing work of human anxiety is to find new way to rebuild the walls.

What's so horrible about baptism that those in favor of CWOB are unwilling to invite a seeker to be baptized at a very early stage, or at least to begin a process of formation leading up to baptism? Is the baptismal covenant so much more demanding than Jesus' teaching (hard to believe since Jesus demands all that we have and all that we are) that no reasonable person could be expected to try to live up to it? Or is the point just to avoid demanding anything of anyone? If it's the last, then it sounds like spiritual cowardice trying to dress up as a noble attempt to bring as many as possible to God in Christ Jesus since most people will rise or fall to the level of what is expected of them.

Fr. Donald, does Gregory of Nyssa also suggest that baptism is just an optional extra for extra keen individuals, while receiving Communion is absolutely essential? Josh may be trying to speak up in favor of the unity of humanity with itself and with God, but I don't think any of us standing against CWOB is trying to impose divisions on humanity, and I've never seen anything in the writings of the mystics like Julian of Norwich that suggests they were in favor of doing away with baptism as the sacramental entry into Christianity. Indeed, Julian is quite clear both that we are inextricably bound to God, and that we should be careful to remain in the church and be obedient to the church. Perhaps you can cite primary sources to the contrary, however.

Truthfully, most public liberal theologizing I've seen has been pretty thin gruel, rarely rising above a simple (and sometimes thoughtless) assertion of the goodness of equality, the bald assertion that whatever is being discussed is a justice issue (regardless of the merits), and the invocation of a radical hospitality that is absolutely rejected by those long-term practitioners of radical hospitality, the monastics.

Thank you for the further clarification, Father.

I've never heard of that interpretation of the "baptism with which I am baptized" before. I'd always heard it (and the context itself seems to say) that Christ was speaking of his death. Is that your own interpretation, or did you receive it from someone else? And could you point me towards the St Gregory quotation you mentioned?

Scott: well, you'd find yourself in good company, as I have never heard of an Episcopal priest demanding proof of baptism at the Communion rail, nor, as far as I know, is anyone advocating they start doing so now.

....and Barbara, the question you raise about risking death to include those deemed unworthy or unprepared IS at the heart of this as far I can tell.

That wasn't the question I raised, actually.

My question was: "Is it ethical to invite people who might risk death into to communion without informing them of the potential danger first?" My answer is: "No." And I suspect this is why the church has for 2,000 years also answered "No."

It's really not about various interpretations of the Zaccheus story in the Bible. It's not about "theological views" of "worthiness or unworthiness," or "who's in and who's out." People keep talking about these things, but nobody here has said anything about "worthiness vs. unworthiness" or "who's in and who's out," except CWOB advocates.

It's not about us; it's about what we're asking other people to do - and without making any provision to provide them with any sort of support, spiritual or otherwise. (Without even thinking about how to do this, as far as I can tell.)

Again: this is not about us and our religious views. My question was about what happens to the people we're "inviting" to Communion, without their knowing a thing about it. We have a church calendar full of martyrs to the faith; is it proper to "invite" people into this who might not know that communion is, in fact, "perilous"?

We know this already, because somebody taught us about it. We know that Dietrich Bonhoeffer said: "When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die." (Does the word "invitation" even make sense, in fact, in this context?)

We can't at the same time claim that communion is dangerous - and then immediately invite people who don't know this to participate in it.

That was the question.

What we'll have to do, in fact, in enacting CWOB, is essentially make the church over from top to bottom.

The martyrs will have to go. The requirement for self-examination and "being in love and charity with others" will have to go: rewrite the Catechism. Bonhoeffer: gone. We sure can't use that quote alongside CWOB.

The Resolution will need to be rewritten to say: "Communion is easy and wonderful, every time. There's no danger and no difficulty in it; nothing at all to worry about." (Not sure how this will go over, though, since proclaimed knowledge about its perilousness and difficulty is already out there on the interwebs. Forever.)

We'll be able to claim that life-altering decisions are best done on the spur of the moment - and we'll need to disregard any potential evidence to the contrary.

We won't ever again be able to quote Annie Dillard on the topic: "On the whole, I do not find Christians, outside the catacombs, sufficiently sensible of the conditions. Does any-one have the foggiest idea what sort of power we so blithely invoke? Or, as I suspect, does no one believe a word of it? The churches are children playing on the floor with their chemistry sets, mixing up a batch of TNT to kill a Sunday morning. It is madness to wear ladies' straw hats and velvet hats to church; we should all be wearing crash helmets. Ushers should issue life preservers and signal flares; they should lash us to our pews. For the sleeping god may wake some day and take offense, or the waking god may draw us out to where we can never return."

We won't ever be able to claim that the movement of the Holy Spirit can, on a personal level, be unsettling and scary. Or, we'll have to divide people into two groups: us, who need to act "boldly" and in knowledge of the "perils" involved - and everybody else, who don't need to be told any of these things, or for whom, we claim, none of these things are true.

And then we'll have done exactly we're attempting to put an end to: we'll have divided the world into "us" and "them," two different classes of people to which two separate sets of conditions apply.

Today a friend of mine told me of an interesting experience with CWOB. His family originally comes from a small town in the North Woods, where they have been members of the local parish for generations. The family no longer lives there, but still owns the family home and goes back regularly for extended vacations.

His sister-in-law is Jewish - not a very observant Jew, but Jewish nonetheless. The first Sunday she was at the family's home parish the rector announced that "everyone is welcomed at God's Table." The sister-in-law thought, "OK, everyone's invited. Cool, but no, thanks," and didn't go up for Communion. After the service the rector approached the family with, "You *do* understand that she's welcome at the altar, right?" He was told that she understood it, but since she was Jewish wouldn't be going to Communion. So the next time she attends without going up the rector approaches her after the service, asking rather pointedly why she wasn't accepting their "hospitality." Evidently the invitation had somehow ceased being an invitation and had become a summons, and the whole issue of Communion had been changed from being Christocentric into something about the community, something about us, as Barbara wrote. He had to be told rather forcefully that she understood she was welcome, but saw receiving Communion as a denial of her Jewish identity.

I hope this is an extreme example, and that most of those pushing CWOB wouldn't pressure non-communicants. I think even in the absence of that sort of aggressive "hospitality" people can be made uncomfortable by the invitation, but this certainly makes the point that some proponents definitely have boundary issues..

To follow what Barbara just said, I'd like to point out that Christ didn't just call on people to risk death for others. He called on his followers to die to themselves and to the world. To be a Christian wasn't just to make new connections, but to risk breaking the relationships you used to have for His sake.

This is why the church has so many martyrs. They cut themselves off from the world, and the World fought back. It's also why monks exist--they cut themselves off to pursue union with God full-time, and model the kingdom in and among themselves. And it's part of the symbolism of baptism: dying to the world so we can rise in Christ.

And all this isn't just about community, but to conquer sin and death along with Christ--breaking down our old selves and concerns to become One with him.

Maybe it's not that our sacraments aren't inclusive enough, but that we're not letting them do their job, of helping us die to ourselves and teaching us to better love God.

- Alex Scott

I have blogged some thought about this and the differing practices concerning communicating children in the Episcopal Church and the Church of England. I propose that Alan de Boton's proposal for Agape Restaurants offers some ways forward.

http://drdjs.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/children-at-the-table-and-open-communion-or-the-agape-restaurant/

Dan Joslyn-Siemiatkoski

Bill,

The Gregory of Nyssa quotation is,

"For it is evident that God will in truth be 'in all' when there shall be no evil in existence, when every created being is at harmony with itself, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord; when every creature shall have been made one body. Now the body of Christ, as I have often said, is the whole of humanity." He's commenting on I Corinthians 15:28, and it's in the Catechetical Oration, Ch. 26.

For your important story about a priest trying to impose communion on a Jewish person making a conscientious decision not to receive, our experience at St. Gregory's was that some Jewish participants in our liturgy (often spouses in a Jewish-Christian marriage) chose to receive and some not, but to make clear that it was an offer and not a compulsion, we changed the language of our invitation from,
"Jesus welcomes everyone to his table so we *give* communion to everyone, and to everyone by name..." to "Jesus welcomes everyone to his table so we *offer* communion to everyone, and to everyone by name..." Further note on the evolution of what we said in invitation follows in response to one of Barbara's points.

Barbara,

St. Gregory's experience of inviting all to communion has been that people do make a conscientious choice about whether to receive. We worked hard to be clear that we weren't attempting to compel people to receive, both in the language of the invitation and in training those administering to respond with immediate ease and grace to anyone refusing. I should add that the whole congregation is gathered around the table for the Eucharist (no altar rails, no coming forward to receive) and that those administering communion are moving through the crowd, so do interact with everyone present unless they step outside after the Eucharist prayer and during administration communion as one Jewish regular attender has done for years. The Eucharistic Prayer and strangers' innate ritual sense do make what's happening clear enough that some are moved to have communion offered to them and others hear the invitation (always appreciatively as far as I've observed it) and choose not to receive. But to make clearer what we believe we're doing, we added a phrase to the invitation I quoted above -
"Jesus welcomes everyone to his table, so we offer everyone the bread and wine which are his body and blood..."

But Jesus didn't welcome all to His table. The Last Supper was in a since, a "closed communion", only with his disciples.

Bill, I'm afraid the example you cite isn't as isolated as you might think. Before I was ordained I was attending worship as a visitor at a parish. The musician was someone I know rather well - a very good musician who happens to be an athiest. He was playing the piano as "hands for hire" that day, and at communion time he didn't come to the rail and indicate in any way that he was interested in receiving. The priest went over to him and attempted to communicate him even though he repeatedly held up both hands and shook his head. It was incredibly awkward and my friend was clearly embarrassed. Unfortunately, I have seen this scenario played out in various ways since then. It smacks of desperation and a forced hospitality that seems, well, inhospitable, because in the fervor to include the newcomer or visitor the priest only succeeded in highlighting the fact that they did not wish to receive communion. I was mortified, not only for them, but for the Church.

I have said above, probably unnoticed, that I find communion without baptism theoretically possible. At St. Gregory of Nyssa (SGON) alone have I seen this practice be done in an effective way, with the proper exhortations as to the seriousness and meaning of the Eucharist as a part of the liturgy itself. And as Fr. Schell notes, it is as easy to decline the Eucharist as it is to partake. This is a hard balance to strike, taking much attention, care and mindfulness, but it can be done. The Sacrifice was offered for the life of the world, "not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world," which is also a scriptural way to look at it. Be very clear, Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us. This is his Body and Blood. If you eat this bread and drink this cup, Christ dwells in you, and you in him. This isn't the Loaves and Fishes for your belly, this is the One Bread and One Cup. This isn't just a nice sinner dinner, this is a participation in the Body and Blood of the Lord, and if you don't discern that at some level, you take it unworthily. It is not enough to be merely spiritually hungry, other spiritual traditions satisfy spiritual hunger in many different ways. To receive the Christian Eucharist, you should be hungry for the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus. You can decline without shame, no questions asked.

Nicole,

Yes, we understand 'Jesus' Table' differently.

I do hear you and others saying that the Last Supper is sui generis, an entirely unique event distinct from the meals Jesus' kept with the multitude and various sinners. And my response is that the Gospel writers don't seem as clear on that distinction as the later church became. The simplest and strongest single case is John 6:25-40, where Jesus gives a wholly Eucharistic interpretation to the feeding of the multitude that John's account places the day before. People come to him (unbelievers who don't get it) wanting more bread and he tells them they've not understand what the Father is giving them in him.

As I read "do this" in Jesus' words of institution, I understand Jesus is interpreting all the meals he's kept with his more or less followers (including the drop-ins who've come to see what this new prophet is up to) and those the disciples will keep in his name going forward.

I don't think reducing the meals earlier in the Gospels to 'just hospitality' acknowledges the scandal Jesus deliberately offers in feasting with known sinners. So, in "do this" I understand that Jesus is telling his disciples to follow him, doing what he's been doing with them (often to their confusion or discomfort) - enacting a reconciling table where the hospitality is God's.

Yes, His sacrifice was offered for the sins of the whole world. But not everyone believes that. In our baptism we make promises and vows in community to God, it is our covenant with him. He paid the ultimate sacrifice, and now baptism is too much to ask for?

I should add that the whole congregation is gathered around the table for the Eucharist (no altar rails, no coming forward to receive) and that those administering communion are moving through the crowd, so do interact with everyone present unless they step outside after the Eucharist prayer and during administration communion as one Jewish regular attender has done for years.

I guess I forgot a couple of things! We'll need to re-work the architecture, too. And no more big congregations, either.

There are all kinds of problems and contradictions built into this issue, to my way of thinking.

What you refer to as "ritual sense" - is there any data on this, BTW, or research? - would apply, I'd think, to religious (and other) rites - but CWOB advocates don't often acknowledge that this is a "religious rite." Instead, it's a "meal."

Now, nobody needs any particular introduction to "a meal." Everybody's eaten meals all their lives; it's an everyday occurrence (hopefully). But this particular meal is apparently invested with all kinds of other meanings - meanings that ordinary meals simply don't have.

For instance, this meal is called "communion." And "communion" is "a Christian sacrament in which consecrated bread and wine are consumed as memorials of Christ's death or as symbols for the realization of a spiritual union between Christ and communicant or as the body and blood of Christ."

What I'm seeing here on this thread from CWOB advocates is an emphasis on the second meaning (and as far as I can see, Anglicanism, while it allows for a "memorial" understanding, does not actually teach it).

And as far as I can tell, making a general announcement that Communion is open to all does not work with any of those definitions. If it's merely a memorial, then there needs to be something or somebody to remember; how does a "stranger" do this? I can tell you from personal experience that it's not possible to absorb even in a minimal way what's being said in the service when you first attend; there's way too much going on, both around you and in your emotions.

If it's "union with God" - well, I've already argued that this isn't something easy, nor is it anything that's all sweetness and light. It's serious business, to my way of thinking, and it is difficult.

"Communion" is also "intimate fellowship or rapport." And strangers will certainly have a hard time achieving "intimate fellowship or rapport," either with the community or with God.

So, I suggest that whatever "innate ritual sense" strangers may be completely confounded by the very words used - and also, I'd say, by the confusion between "meal" and "religious rite."

Which could very well mean that nothing coherent is being communicated at all, and the "ritual sense" may not, in fact, be working properly.

BTW, I've belonged to 2 parishes that practice CWOB, and have never seen any attempt to gather first names or use them - nor have I ever seen any parish-wide discussions about looking out for strangers who are invited to communion. I've never heard of any followup procedures, either, or any attempt to offer spiritual support of any kind.

I can tell you - also from personal experience - that it's perfectly possible to simply remain seated during Communion, which I did for almost two years when I first came to church. And BTW, it's also very nice - and, believe it or not, a more humanly intimate experience - to go up and receive a blessing, and to have the sign of the cross traced on your forehead. My first CWOB parish didn't bother saying this, BTW; Communion was the only thing on offer. Too bad.

I read Jesus eating with sinners as him accepting their invitations, and expressing his own generosity. I still don't think this shows the radical intimacy implied in the Last Supper, just as corporate worship is not the same thing as my own personal prayer life. We follow Jesus in these examples by embracing people where they are, by going out into the world to love them. Part of the role of our worship should be to teach us to better do that.

For that matter, a constant theme in John's gospel is Jesus taking something mundane -- bread, water, birth -- and proclaiming that something even better is on the way. He gives the woman regular water, but tells her about living water. He gives the bread to the thousands, but only talks about the bread of life the next day, when people start coming for more. It reads more as an anticipation of the Eucharist, rather than the institution of it.

And that does seem to be a rather simplistic and selective reading of St. Gregory. He looks to me like he's referring more to the eschatological hope of the Church, of the future union with God. He's not saying "We are one," but "We will be one." I also found on CCEL Gregory's sermon on baptism, where he celebrates it and extols its transforming power.

I think what was said before about identity is important. We need to respect people in their own identity, and not pretend it doesn't matter. Our baptismal covenant involves turning away from our old selves and putting on new ones. That's a pretty big deal.

A Jewish person isn't going to think Jesus is the Messiah or the Son of God. A Muslim isn't going to think Jesus is part of the Trinity, or that he even died. An atheist isn't necessarily going to buy any of it. I'm glad St. Gregory's is more careful about this, but I doubt most CWOB parishes are, or would be if the canon changed.

- Alex Scott

Oh my goodness, we are still going on about this!

At this point I think Jesus has slipped away from our bickering to enjoy his favorite adult beverage with the local undesirables, and, in line with his mission strategy back in the day, is currently serving up hot-dog bun communion with a box of grape juicy juice in the local Walmart parking lot, telling people stories about how much God loves them.

The venue's changed, folks- hop to it!

God doesn't change.

If only that was the practice, Josh!

The problem for most Episcopal parishes is that CWOB is akin to Kony2012... We hit 'like' and 'share,' expending just enough energy to make us feel like we've done something without actually doing anything at all. CWOB, whether we want to admit it or not, absolves us of the need to form the relationships your 'hot dogs at Walmart' imagery conjures. It's fundamentally narcissistic; we feel satisfied, but leave the non-Baptized communicant baffled. The work of building up baptized disciples, grounded in relationship with one another and with Christ, is much harder than simply handing out wafers.

Um, Josh?

We're the "local undesirables." I think that's kind of the whole point of the thing....

(But, you may be right that there's no good reason to bother with either the Church OR with communion anymore - especially when it's all available down at Walmart.)

No, what the Walmart parking lot communion absolves us of is the need for is a bloated institution like TEC in its current form, which at its current rate of decline, only has another generation left in it anyways.

Relationship building, baptism and discipleship is not dependent on TEC's mediation- the Church is the people and it will be here when TEC is gone. If TEC hopes to be a part of God's future it needs to make itself transparent to the Spirit of Jesus and stop spending 200 posts about on who should or should not get the cracker.

We've asked you before to show some measure of respect for our views. If you're going to insist on mocking us, on disparaging TEC's current and historical form, dismissing the witness of the ancient church, and from what I can tell, any form of organized worship that's not made in your image, why should we or anyone else listen to you?

TEC is not going to vanish tomorrow because of its already-inclusive stance on the Eucharist? By that logic, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, the Missouri Synod, and the rest of the Anglican Communion, should be long gone already. If it's just about appealing to Americans, well, what makes Americans so special? This is a transient culture, and any church that binds itself too closely to one cultural setting or another is doomed to date itself.

And I'd like to ask you again: what else are you willing to drop for the sake of converts? And once you pop the bread in their mouths, then what?

- Alex Scott

Relationship building, baptism and discipleship is not dependent on TEC's mediation- the Church is the people and it will be here when TEC is gone.

You're right. These things are dependent on us - not on whether or not somebody in a clerical collar hands out the "cracker" to "undesirables."

"The Church" didn't just spring, fully-formed, out of the earth. It's been around for 2,000 years, built up here and there, often by people who died doing it - and for all those years, it somehow muddled along without CWOB (as the rest of it still does).

The Church is about people, and about our relationships with one another. It's about looking after one another, and looking out for one another's welfare (and this extends, hopefully, to looking out for other people, too, and for the world).

And to be honest, in my experience we kind of suck at this. I mean, newcomers get ignored at coffee hour - all the while we're telling them to come on down and commune with Jesus.

So I think we'd better attend to ourselves first. I know that some parishes may be doing much better in the way they implement this. But I've seen all these things with my own eyes. Other people here are reporting some of the things they've seen. I think some of the ways this has been implemented are actually unethical - and we're all supposed to just ignore these things in order to "be part of God's future," and because you're in a hurry? Sorry, no.

If Communion is only a cracker, then we should just get rid of it; it serves no real purpose. If it's something important, then it deserves a lot more attention than 200 posts on a discussion board.

If hot dog buns and juicy juice at Walmart are enough - and they may in fact be - then let's just save ourselves all the aggravation and time and money, and shut the whole thing down.

@Alex: More fundamentally... Converted to what? This is Bonhoeffer's cheap grace and Jean Baudrillard's simulacrum all blended together. A symbol of something for which the receiver has no relationship to the thing being represented, combined with the expectation that God's going to do something no matter what (talk about a mechanistic ex opere operato taken to it's extreme!). It's like people born in the '80s talking about how authentic Mad Men portrays the '60s.

@Josh: We spend 200 posts on it because there is a conviction that the sacrament means something beyond what an individual projects on to it. If it is absolutely devoid of meaning, then you're right, this is all a foolish waste of time; but then again, what's compelling about participating in a ritual that means absolutely nothing in the first place? That's the basic failure of the CWOB position; there's no 'there' there. All it does is accompany me as branding. Swapping a Nike swoosh for the Host.

It isn't about who gets the "cracker" as you put it. It's about whether or not TEC is going to be actually counter-cultural or simply jump headlong into the Matrix of consumer culture, being complicit in consumerism and the diminishment of the imago dei that consumerism demands rather than opposing it outright.

(In fact, I think the church has not even scratched the surface in the area of "building up baptized disciples, grounded in relationship with one another and with Christ."

Look to A.A. and other 12-Step programs if you want to see how to treat newcomers. Talk to people. Do your best to make them feel at home. Have a seeker's service without Communion, but with a time for talking afterwards. Give people your phone number. Ask them about themselves (although don't ask questions that are too personal). Help them in their struggles, if they share them, and dry their tears. Sit with them after the service and encourage them; tell them how it's been for you, and that "it gets better."

Don't assume people have been properly welcomed because a priest has given them some bread and wine and involved them in a strange religious rite without any preparation. It really doesn't.)

Alex,

I don't respect the view that people should be kept away from table solely because they are unbaptized, just as I don't respect the view that the earth is 6,000 years old or gay people are ineligible to be priests. Like other controversies in the church that we find ourselves in, this has nothing to do with still being able to love and appreciate others.

The mainline church is dying on the vine, and we are in a state of denial if we can't say so without being attacked. Diana Butler Bass just wrote a book about it- I guess she should cease her affiliation with TEC as well?

I also think that when the communion elements are used in a way that is incompatible with the Spirit of Jesus they cease being sacred in a way they otherwise would be. Not that I have anything against crackers and wine in a memorialist meal sense. But I'm arguing for a high Christological Eucharist that is deeply sacramental AND open to all- it is only inadequate theology based on the desire to protect the Holy that makes this linkage oxymoronical to you, in my judgement.

I will repeat again, Creation and the Cosmic Christ are the primary sacrament, and for those of here who are Catholics, the invisible church includes many people who have never celebrated the Eucharist or been baptized. Eucharist therefore becomes a gratuitous gift to us the Church and the world, not a necessary one as Protestants make plain, but a treasured one. Which is why devalue our treasure by adopting an anti-Jesus position on who is invited to God's Table.

"Anti-Jesus position"? That's a bit rich isn't it? Wasn't it Jesus who said: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”-Matthew 28:19-20

Why don't we just do as He says?? As to why the mainline Church is dying, do you truly think that toying around with the sacraments is going to remedy that? Just as someone mentioned, the other sacramental churches are doing just fine. CWOB is like going to pick out the plot for burial in my honest opinion.

Josh, what's so horrible about baptism that we couldn't possibly offer it to repeat visitors fairly quickly?

Jonathan Galliher

"I don't respect the view that people should be kept away from table solely because they are unbaptized..."

Well what about respecting your brothers and sisters who DO hold to what is, after all, the Church's discipline? I haven't seen anyone openly denigrating the beliefs of people they disagree with to the extent that you have here. Nota bene: it's not because we find your theological musings unassailable.

"...it is only inadequate theology based on the desire to protect the Holy that makes this linkage oxymoronical to you..."

It really is remarkable the extent to which you are willing to put words into people's mouths, rather than engage our actual arguments.

"I will repeat again, Creation and the Cosmic Christ are the primary sacrament... Eucharist therefore becomes a gratuitous gift to us the Church and the world, not a necessary one as Protestants make clear..."

I'm sure you find that all very compelling, but it's not what the Church teaches. You're certainly free to believe it, but I can't see how you can possibly justify castigating us for not signing on to it and remaining with the doctrine and discipline of the Episcopal Church.

I hesitate to wade into a thread that stands now at nearly 170 (not 200) posts, although I'll note the irony of one's criticizing the number of posts as being indicative of some sort of spiritual missing-of-the-point, when one has oneself in fact contributed a rather high percentage of those very posts.

Or perhaps we postmoderns really have lost all sense of irony, as in criticizing as being founded in "Empire" a practice that was even more stringent in the very period that stands as the most anti-"Empire" in church history.

I don't want to just repeat points already made, although I do want to add a hearty Amen to all those comments above that look at CWOB and see good intentions coupled with, as Tobias Haller termed it, "a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of these two sacraments [i.e., Baptism and Holy Communion], and their interrelationship." And likewise a hearty Amen for all those who have reminded us that this isn't about turning away folks who take it upon themselves to receive, this is about whether an explicit invitation (with some degree of encouragement or even intimidation) to receive is issued to the unbaptized.

But I'll add the following, a line of thought I haven't seen addressed yet:

In considering, over the years, the relative merits of each position, pro- and anti-CWOB, I have found it useful to try to extrapolate to their logical ends the arguments used. And in the case of the anti-CWOB arguments, I see no reason why their logical extension would not in fact sweep right past the Eucharist and move on to be applied as well to other sacraments / "sacramental rites" and the various roles in which people participate in these rites.

For example, I honestly do not see why the very same arguments in favor of CWOB could not be applied as well to Holy Orders or to Eucharistic presidency. What more radical hospitality, what more extravagant welcome, what more tearing down of (allegedly) Church-built barriers and distinctions, than ordination of the unbaptized, or not just lay presidency but unbaptized lay presidency?

This may seem to be written tongue-in-cheek, but it's not. I'm quite serious about this -- if we don't distinguish between baptized and unbaptized in terms of who should be invited to the Eucharist, why should we distinguish between these categories in terms of who receives ordination (after all, just as it has been pointed out that there's no evidence all apostles were baptized, yet they all shared the first Eucharist, so too they are all understood to have received Holy Orders) or simply who presides at the Eucharist (tearing down the barriers that mark not just one but *two* of those dreaded "in-groups": the baptized and the ordained)? Why draw the circle to include the unbaptized in receiving Communion, but then still exclude them from these other sacramental acts?

For me, these logical extensions of the arguments deployed for CWOB highlight what I consider the ultimate theological incoherence of the CWOB position. But I'm open to persuasion, and I'm sincere in seeking an answer as to what CWOB supporters do with these questions, and whether they make a logical distinction of some sort between these acts and Communion such that they would admit the unbaptized to Communion but then exclude them from these other acts. Why should ordination or presidency require that one have been initiated into the Church, yet Communion not? After all, CWOB advocates argue that sequences, like other "exclusionary" barriers, don't matter (e.g., the "outside of time" arguments above), and/or are man-made and just waiting for the Spirit to blow them down.

Should our official discernment processes then begin to encourage the unbaptized to seek ordination, and welcome their doing so while remaining unbaptized? At Sunday Mass, should we invite whoever feels so moved, but especially the unbaptized in attendance, to step into the sacristy, vest, be handed a BCP, and led to the altar to preside? If not, why not?

As they say on radio call-in shows, I'll hang up now and take my answer off the air. Thanks in advance.

"...it is only inadequate theology based on the desire to protect the Holy that makes this linkage oxymoronical to you..."

Well, yes, I am trying to protect the Holy, because I see intimacy and mystery as fundamentally lacking in mainline churches, especially compared to our Orthodox and Catholic brothers and sisters. Try telling the monks on Mt. Athos--the ones who say "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner" as much as humanly possible--that they're "Anti-Jesus."

And I've seen you make assertions and resort to mockery, but I have yet to see you actually refute what we've said. Just saying it's inadequate doesn't make it inadequate. So go ahead. Refute me.

Bear in mind, Donald Schell has been able to disagree and be exceedingly polite and patient with us on the Anti-CWOB side. You might follow his example.

One other point: yesterday the Pope held Mass in Mexico. I saw it on TV at a Mexican restaurant over lunch. There were thousands in attendance. Just saying, you have an uphill battle.

- Alex Scott

Yikes... Major typo I just caught in my comment of March 26, 2012 9:24 PM:

"And in the case of the anti-CWOB arguments..." should of course be "And in the case of the pro-CWOB arguments...." Sorry for any confusion.

This will be my last comment, Alex and Bill.

Alex- the Holy is not yours to protect. So keep trying to protect It. You will fail miserably in excluding people from God's Table as an act of "protection"

As Jesus said, God could turn stones into Sons of Abraham, and is as likely to use hotdog buns to transmit the Real Presence as anything we dish out on Sunday mornings. I would prefer the hotdog bun communion where everyone is invited to a wagon circling "communion" that violates the basic principles of what it means to be a Christian.

As Scrooge said- may you and the Mt. Athos monks keep Christ in your way, and I will do so in mine- and mine doesn't include declaring myself a sinner for every other breath and pleading for mercy while living on an island that still keeps Byzantium time and keeps women out at all costs, as if this gives assurance of the authenticity they think they possess (no one is more vocal about how they are the "true church" than the Orthodox, whatever other gifts they bring to the Church Universal).

Bill- We should all be thankful, for many reasons, that throughout church history, what the church teaches can change, and "discipline" was and is not always kept, especially when it involves moving in the direction of Jesus- like Open Table does. I have no desire to go down the pathetic and extraordinarily lengthy list of the way the church has been wrong in the past.

The basic difference between us is, I don't think that any amount of clinging to the Imperial Traditions makes you more authentic, not that I care about authenticity to begin with. This isn't the Olympics where people are graded on being True To Form. God who is Creator and indwelling Presence is the source of all creativity in this world, spiritual and otherwise, and is not threatened by needed changes in a tiny church on the North American continent. Both of your argument structures do nothing more than fall back to "this is the way its been done" and "lots of other people are doing it too"... We get it. Discipleship is not a popularity contest. Its not a point to be argued anyways- its a choice, just like the gay thing and everything else. You can find arguments on either side to support the choice you have already made in your heart to include or exclude.

If you actually think that by excluding people from God's table you are defending God or the living Christian Tradition, or in any way whatsoever furthering the cause of the Gospel in so doing, I feel you are aligning yourself with the wrong trajectory in the Christian tradition that has always sought to cut off the white hot energy of the Jesus event, and has too often succeeded.

We need this energy now more than ever, and we should all refuse to stop the good work that Spirit is doing in Truly Open Communion churches.

Not that She needs your approval, as She will eventually blow down whatever barrier we in our arrogance and stupidity attempt to erect, till the very end of time.

A truly losing battle if there ever was one.

Indeed, Josh, it is easy to find excuses to exclude and denigrate others as you have very ably demonstrated

How about any of the other pro-CWOB folks, care to give your opinion on why baptizing previously unbaptized repeat visitors is such a tremendous burden that it's better to just skip the baptizing altogether?

Jonathan Galliher

No one is "excluded" from baptism.

Alex, yes - Fr Schell (hi, Father!) has managed to argue for CWOB while practicing charity and civility. For what it's worth, I was discussing this subject with a priest who had researched CWOB and written about it in seminary. He said that as far as he could tell, Fr Schell and others connected with St Gregory of Nyssa were the only ones who seemed to be doing the hard work of examining the subject theologically, as opposed to endorsing it out of mere sentimentality and trendy slogans. He still disagrees with their take on CWOB, but respects their integrity in dealing with the issue.

Bill,

Thanks for good words and for hearing that I'm trying to listen. I appreciate your priest friend's acknowledgment that St. Gregory's has been a place of taking this question seriously and of doing the work that goes with it.

I've also been watching this conversational thread and thinking about how we talk to one another. Over and over again, I find myself wishing that Christian formation work included modeling how sisters and brothers can argue. I think of a spiritual practice of fierce, engaged argument as a Jewish and rabbinic tradition that the church has missed.

In our conversation above this it feels to me like two of our really important voices, Barbara's and Josh's have modeled themselves (consciously or not) on St. Paul and on Jeremiah or Amos. I guess I've been aiming for an Isaiah sort of voice. Uproar and disagreement is certainly there within the canon of scripture and in the long haul may be part of how we discern the Spirit. But what I also see here is that we're not very successful at listening to one another. We've seen this before with other charged, difficult conversations.

That's the take away from this for me and I'm thinking about praying about what we can do about it. It's not just about the open invitation to communion, it's about how we're community and how we manifest Christ's presence among us and find in common 'the mind of Christ' that St. Paul so boldly claims is ours.

I suppose it's not a bad lesson, though - having people ignore you while ending up going directly to God. That's reality, too.

I have to say, if CWOB gets enacted, it really shouldn't be called "Communion Before Baptism." That seems like a bait-and-switch sort of thing, and another instance of talking out of both sides of our mouths.

It should be "Communion, anytime, no questions asked and no pressure to join."

If it's free, it's free, and that should be the end of it. Live it out all the way, or don't do it at all. Let it be seen to be unconditional and without ulterior motive.

(And BTW personally, I think the announcement should be: "Communion is open to all - but if you've never been in a church before, or don't know anything about this rite, or are in any other way unsure: we really don't advise it. Come talk to us first.")

And now: it's off to Walmart with me!

"... not that I care about authenticity to begin with."

Come off it, Josh. You just spent two days telling us why CWOB and your own personal beliefs are the ONLY authentic way to continue in the footsteps of Christ. Of course you care about authenticity.

"Both of your argument structures do nothing more than fall back to "this is the way its been done" and "lots of other people are doing it too"

No, especially if you're referring to my last post. My point was/is that I didn't join the Episcopal Church because I thought she was wrong about just about everything and wanted to remake her according to the lights of someone claiming direct and unmediated access to the Mind of God. Expecting me (or anyone else) to jettison the Church's doctrine and discipline on what amounts to your strident claims of being more in tune with Christ than the rest of us is simply not reasonable. The Church does change, and doctrine does develop, but the Church is a community - a community that Alex and I are a part of no less than you, and over which you do not exercise veto rights. If ECUSA changes her policies it will be it will do so as a community, not because you insist on it.

You have framed the argument in terms of inclusion and exclusion, with you and the other proponents of on the side of inclusion and the mean old anti-Jesus backers of Empire on the excluding side. Ironically, though, you're involved in a fair amount of excluding yourself; by your claim to have a handle on discipleship and God's opinion on any number of issues, you effectively read those who disagree - past and present - out of the Church, or at least out of that part that the Church that seeks to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit (which is who I'm assuming you mean by "Spirit").

This will be my last post on the subject, because I've just about exhausted everything I can say.

But I do want to recommend this blog post, which rather neatly sums up what Barbara and I were trying to say:

"I am reminded of the rabbinic story of God searching the earth for a people to take up the covenant and commandments. Only the Hebrews are willing to be chosen. Being chosen is not about being privileged, it is about precisely the opposite, about being called to serve. What is missing from conversations about inclusivity is that adoption, our being grafted into Christ, carries with it that same weight as the Covenant God has with our Jewish kin."

The rest of the post is worth a read, too. He also has an interesting suggestion, that if anything, it's baptism that can be more inclusive, not communion. It's a new idea for me, and something I'll chew over for sure.

- Alex Scott

Sorry, I messed up the link:

http://contemplativevernacular.blogspot.com/2012/03/cwob-asking-wrong-questions.html

Since people have taken it upon themselves to qualify my remarks on this thread with their own interpretations of what "civility" and "brotherly love" is, I will respond for a final time to those sentiments, and not the CWOB issue, which I already said I was through with.

1.) Pathos, anger, and even mild sarcasm has a place in discussion of very important things, as someone said, its very Jewish and very much in keeping with Jesus' own approach. In any event, as someone who writes from the heart and not the head its bound to come out. It doesn't affect the ability to love other unconditionally, any more than having a legitimate family argument does.

2.) People are not used to having tradition challenged. It is fine for them to cite tradition out the yin yang to support their own views, as has happened in this thread over and over again, but if someone like me comes along and challenges the basis of that tradition they want to "throw out" everything in the past that matters, or are insensitive to the arguments. Not so. I am presenting another view of tradition- one that I feel is equally if not more valid than the other views of tradition on offer- especially as it is rooted in Jesus and his prophetic ministry, and the innumerable people who have followed that example for the past 2000 years. The Quaker I mentioned is part of the Christian tradition, she does not have a long beard and recite the Jesus prayer on Mt. Athos, but her perspective on the faith matters too.

So I am part of the tradition, and am following a different trajectory in tradition than those who want to emphasize the insolvent and "authoritative" (overly patriarchal) ways of tradition rather than its continuous capacity to liberate and transmit the Jesus experience.

3.) I am not a postmodernist. I was until a few years ago, but I found the dangers of appearing dogmatic paled in comparison with bottoming out into relativism, sentimentalism, nihilism and irrelevancy. It can be said that I am an absolutist. Huston Smith made a helpful distinction between dogmaticisim and absolutism.
Absolutists are people who have found that having an absolute contributes significant energy to their spiritual life- as have I. Those guiding absolutes are the centrality of love and justice, erring on the side of inclusion, refusal to say that nonChristian people are in an inferior spiritual position to us, refusal to denigrate gay people in any way, refusal to exclude one half of humanity from the divine image, and the priviledging of the historical AKA Real Jesus as the standard of orthodoxy in matters of dogmatics, among other absolutes.

I am not under any illusion that I have the absolute or final truth, and I am not dogmatic because I do not regard my own absolutes as unassailable or impervious to change. But they are what guide my spiritual life on this side of eternity, and if you were honest with yourself you would see that you have a "bottom line" in spiritual things as well, even if that bottom line is not having a bottom line.

But none of you have constantly qualified your statements in the way you are expecting me to, because you are so unused to seeing a progressive claim their faith as deeply and passionately and as authoritatively as the more authoritarian and patriarchal christian sources you compare your own practice to.
Moreover, it should come as no surprise that I regard my approach as more in keeping with where the church should be now, or else I would not be articulating it. Again, this is what Abrahamic people have done forever (as someone cited the prophets as an example). I have a right and even a spiritual responsibility to express outrage when policies are put in place that would turn people away from encounter with God.

4) I regard the first-hand modes of determining truth to be superior to the second hand modes. Second hand modes are reason, tradition, and scripture (not scripture that has been quickened into a living rhema in the moment).
These sources of first hand authority would be the immediate presence of Spirit such as we encounter in spiritual practice, in Creation, in acts of compassion, bringing a gnosis that is not subject to verification by the second hand sources. THe second hand sources can help us chart the course that Spirit is already showing us in the present moment. When Jesus left, he did not say he was going to send us a book to lead us into all truth, but the spirit. Moreover, he was not a moralist or a theologian (based on speculative knowledge)- he was a wisdom teacher- he himself experienced God on a direct basis and taught other people how to do the same, and is partly or wholly what got him killed when it spilled out into prophetic action of inclusiveness.

It is precisely first hand experience that allowed Jesus to run roughshod over his own tradition where it was wrong. As Mordecai Kapan said, tradition has a voice, not a veto. You are seeking to use tradition to veto what God is already doing in people's hearts as they open their hand and heart to receive God, both as parishioner and truly open communion priests. To me, this is an illegitimate use of tradition. If we spent as much time and energy developing the first hand ways of the way Jesus did, as we have the second hand, maybe in 2000 years we will have a balanced Christianity.

So whenever something like this comes up in the future that goes to heart of my own absolutes, which I regard as being rooted in the heart of what it means to be a Christian, don't expect me to change my tenor. Constantly attacking my delivery is not a way of wiggling out of what I or anyone else has to say.

Peace out.

I know I said I was done, but God help me...

I think it's hilarious the way you're trying to paint me as some hard-nosed conservative who is "not used to having tradition challenged" or "unused to seeing a progressive claim their faith as deeply and passionately and as authoritatively as the more authoritarian and patriarchal christian sources you compare your own practice to." Obviously you're not a mind-reader. You also didn't see my bookshelf back when it was full of Spong and Borg books. Right now it's more Merton, Tillich, and books on Judaism and Buddhism, with a growing list of Patristics. Ever think that maybe studying tradition may have challenged my own absolutes?

And if there's anything I've learned from my spiritual reading, it's that when we turn our hearts to God, we have to be careful that we're not simply worshiping an idea of God we have in our heads.

Finally, I gotta say, if the "historical Jesus" is the standard of Orthodoxy, then we're all in big trouble; I've seen about as many "historical" Jesuses as there are Jesus Seminar members.

- Alex Scott

"1.) Pathos, anger, and even mild sarcasm has a place in discussion..."

Yes, but not pride of place.

"2.) People are not used to having tradition challenged."

If you honestly think that anyone who has had anything to do with the Episcopal Church since the days of Bishop Pike isn't, by this time, used to having tradition challenged, you are seriously mistaken.

" I am presenting another view of tradition- one that I feel is equally if not more valid than the other views of tradition on offer- especially as it is rooted in Jesus and his prophetic ministry, and the innumerable people who have followed that example for the past 2000 years."

It would be helpful if you referred to actual, numerable people. With the exception of the Rev. Dr. Cynthia Bourgeault you don't actually seem to appeal to what any specific person in the tradition has said about the Eucharist. You allude to St Hildegard of Bingen and Julian of Norwich, but not to any statement of theirs about the topic under discussion. And your comments here have blown hot and cold about tradition itself, sometimes denigrating it as "Imperial," embodying the spirit of antichrist, or toxic, and sometimes claiming it as your own.

"I am not under any illusion that I have the absolute or final truth, and I am not dogmatic because I do not regard my own absolutes as unassailable or impervious to change."

Passing over the issue of how absolutes can be assailable or not the absolute truth, this is not the impression you give. Frankly, your repeated claims to be more in tune with the "Spirit of Jesus" don't seem designed to assure anyone of the assailability or openness to change of those absolutes, and neither does your statement later in your comments about those absolutes "being rooted in the heart of what it means to be a Christian."

"But none of you have constantly qualified your statements in the way you are expecting me to..."

Speaking only for myself, when I appeal to Tradition as supporting a statement of mine, I am qualifying it in precisely that way - especially when I appeal to a specific voice. I'm saying that you don't have to take my word for it, that it's not my own assertion alone. Moreover, I'm pointing to the source as a way to judge my statement. I may have misunderstood or twisted what, say, St Justin Martyr say; by citing him, though, I allow you the opportunity to point that out.

..."because you are so unused to seeing a progressive claim their faith as deeply and passionately and as authoritatively as the more authoritarian and patriarchal christian sources you compare your own practice to."

Because progressives are usually so shy and retiring? Get real.

"4) I regard the first-hand modes of determining truth to be superior to the second hand modes...These sources of first hand authority would be the immediate presence of Spirit such as we encounter in spiritual practice, in Creation, in acts of compassion, bringing a gnosis that is not subject to verification by the second hand sources."

As wonderful as that must be in your own life, it doesn't seem very useful in discussing issues with others. If everyone abandoned verifiable sources and started claiming independent, unmediated access to the Mind of God as the justification of our views, we'd be left with a "he said, she said" scenario ad infinitum. "God spoke to me and said I'm right" isn't something that anyone else can really respond to in a meaningful way, and if the response is "Well, God told me you're mistaken about what S/He seemed to be saying to you" it gets worse - you're left with dueling private revelations.

"As Mordecai Kapan said, tradition has a voice, not a veto."

It's funny, but I was thinking of this quote by Rabbi Kaplan and Reconstructionism earlier in our discussion. The problem with this approach is that it only has any sort of integrity if you actually know what tradition says. If you've decided beforehand that the tradition is outmoded and is unworthy of being learned, then the saying becomes a shorthand way of saying that whatever idea pops into your head trumps tradition.

You've repeatedly made inaccurate statements about what you think the opponents of CWOB believe regarding the Eucharist (as when you threw the term transubstantiation into the mix). At times they have amounted to rather crude stereotypes. It sounds to me as if much of your views on the Church's teaching on the Eucharist come second or third hand, and not from any source particularly favorable to that teaching. If you're going to assert that the tradition has a voice, not a veto - about the Eucharist or anything else - you ought to take the time to find out what the tradition is actually articulating.

"don't expect me to change my tenor."

I'll expect nothing, but one can hope, Josh.

"As wonderful as that must be in your own life, it doesn't seem very useful in discussing issues with others. If everyone abandoned verifiable sources and started claiming independent, unmediated access to the Mind of God as the justification of our views, we'd be left with a "he said, she said" scenario ad infinitum."

You are operating under the postmodernist assumption that a.) God is something that can't be experienced directly, decisively and objectively and b.) that God favors uniformity rather than diversity within unity. It is precisely the view that second hand sources are more authoritative that is at the root of this discussion, and that first hand experience is incapable of leading to effective decision making. If that is the case there would be no religion, as they all spring out direct experience. I would put forward that in the major areas that affect our humanity, such as inclusion, Spirit is saying basically the same thing across traditions right now, and this voice can be objectively heard, in a way that tradition and scripture with its hodgepodge of past perspectives, some good, some that have proven to be evil (slavery), cannot and will not, as they are records of God's encounter with people in the past. We have to be faithful in our own time and place, as they tried to be.

Second hand sources cannot take the place of Spirit. As I said, we need another 2,000 years of learning how to listen to Her, and maybe then we will be balanced.

The Church exists to transmit in its teaching, practice, and common life a Way to experience the same intimacy with God that Jesus did, according to Thomas Keating.

"You are operating under the postmodernist assumption that a.) God is something that can't be experienced directly, decisively and objectively"

No. I'm saying that there's no way to evaluate someone's claims about such an experience objectively. (God, of course, is a someone, not a something). I'm also saying that this does not appear to be God's normal way of communicating the divine will to humans.

"b.) that God favors uniformity rather than diversity within unity."

Rather, I'm assuming that God isn't self-contradictory, that God doesn't give two mutually exclusive orders ("Practice CWOB!" "Don't practice CWOB!") at the same time.

Josh, there's no way to meaningfully judge a statement based on direct private revelation going solely on the statement itself and the sincerity or zeal of the one making it. Among the possibilities are that (a) they're lying; (b) they're mistaken; (c) they're delusional - if all we have is their word for it, we have no way of evaluating the statements on their own except how they relate to the Church's experience of God.

Other people in other traditions are absolutely certain that God is directing them towards actions that have nothing to do with inclusion. They are absolutely as sure of themselves and what God is saying to them as you are. In the absence of an independent source, like our common experience through the centuries, it really is "s/he said, s/he said."

"In the absence of an independent source, like our common experience through the centuries, it really is "s/he said, s/he said."

No Bill, it really isn't, and don't take this the wrong way, but I feel sympathy towards you if you think so. You and I are both gay- centuries ago we would have been burned at the stake for who we are- do you think God has changed in any significant way since that time? That inclusion just came out of thin air from the "independent source" of Tradition, or perhaps Spirit has been trying to get it through our heads all along, and we have just successfully ignored Her for so long.

People of Spirit across traditions since time immemorial have congealed around very similar experiences of the Holy and very similar messages for humanity, and I would go one step further to say that the living heart of each authentic faith is not only similar, it is IDENTICAL (the identity being the Cosmic Christ). We all have to live this reality in our specific cultural contexts, which is why they differ exoterically (and without denying that Jesus was/is integral to the world's salvation).

Religion has always been in the control business, as Jack Spong says- you would expect that the human endeavor committed to ultimate things called religion would inspire both the best and the worst in us. But in the midst of all the evil and excess, and against much of the orthodoxy within each tradition, God really is there, God really does speak, and God really can be known.

I humbly think that you are kicking against the pricks and attempting to swim upstream in the CWOB issue- because it is obvious to many of us that Spirit is doing a new (old) thing now (which is why you can be a priest, for example) and She is also doing a marvelously beautiful and effective thing in CWOB. CWOB is never an end in itself- it is another channel of grace that God is using to draw people to/into Herself. As our prayerbook says, what God is joining together we better not be putting asunder.

Any action we take to protect the Holy out of a sense of tradition, a subtle fear or anxiety is illegitimate, but if you legitimately think that this action can cause pain or danger to people as a priest, than I can respect that resistance, and only under that set of circumstances.

Perhaps in your unique instance CWOB doesn't make sense or isn't necessary.
But in the middle of the least churched state in our Union, at the parish in San Francisco mentioned, or in the midst of squalor and spiritual and physical neglect in the heart of DC where I used to worship at a truly open table, it does, and it is part of God's larger movement towards shalom that we dare not interrupt, at our own spiritual peril.

"No Bill, it really isn't, and don't take this the wrong way, but I feel sympathy towards you if you think so."

Take it the wrong way? Never, Josh - I'm sure you meant this bit of condescension in the most loving way possible. :-/

"do you think God has changed in any significant way since that time? That inclusion just came out of thin air from the "independent source" of Tradition"

No, no more than it came because someone stood up in 1974 and announced that God had come to them and told them it was time to take homosexuality out of the next edition of the DSM-II.

You misunderstood my reference to Tradition. As our scientific knowledge about sexuality has changed, it's been tested against what the tradition has to say as a whole about people; it makes sense to change our practice in order to further the emphasis of the tradition as a whole on human dignity and love.

"People of Spirit..."

(I really have to ask, what is with you and the definite article? The reason I ask is that the example I'm most familiar with of insisting on dropping the definite article in this context is on the part of the Jehovah's Witnesses, who use the differing examples of the definite article in the Greek to strip the Holy Spirit of personhood. What exactly do you think you're communicating by "Spirit" that you're not by using the more familiar terminology?)

"...across traditions since time immemorial have congealed around very similar experiences of the Holy and very similar messages for humanity and I would go one step further to say that the living heart of each authentic faith is not only similar, it is IDENTICAL (the identity being the Cosmic Christ). We all have to live this reality in our specific cultural contexts, which is why they differ exoterically (and without denying that Jesus was/is integral to the world's salvation)."

I'm sorry, Josh, but this doesn't sound any more convincing coming from you than it does from Bahá'u'lláh. I think I'll pass.

"(which is why you can be a priest, for example)"

Excuse me?

"but if you legitimately think that this action can cause pain or danger to people as a priest"

What the hell? Are you under the impression I'm a priest? Josh, I'm a secondary school Spanish teacher. The closest thing I get to being a priest is subdeaconing at Solemn High Mass, for crying out loud.

Look, you write as if you were under the impression that you're the first person I've come across who claims that God explicitly speaks to them and that, where their supposed revelation contradicts Tradition or Reason, I'll just have to trust them on it. I'm old enough to have witnessed the nonsense of the charismatic movement of the 1970s at close hand. I've known plenty of people who claimed to have had a direct line to the Mind of God, and that if I just did as they said I could be part of the extra-special group of the Perfecti, too. I'll pass on your particular version of it, too, if you don't mind.

The Holy Spirit is a Christian term for God's Spirit that is known in all places, times, and contexts, by many names. I call her Spirit because it is more personal than calling Her "the Holy spirit", just like calling God is more personal than "the Father."

"I'm sorry, Josh, but this doesn't sound any more convincing coming from you than it does from Bahá'u'lláh. I think I'll pass."

Its not a question of whether its sounds convincing or not, its a question of whether or not its True, ultimately. With the great majority of mystics, including Jesus, across human history, I think it is. And I do not regard mysticism as being the province of the few "Perfecti" but our birthright as human beings, even if in the past the mystical perspective, for various cultural reasons, has not been preeminent. Your inability to acknowledge the credibility of mysticism and direct knowledge (or my being deluded about the whole thing) is at the root of our disagreement.

I am very familiar with charismatic contexts as well. But just because pseudo-mysticism exists, does not mean that the Real Deal does not, or that mysticism in and of itself is delusional. I might add in passing that Christianity is the only major tradition to actively persecute its mystics, so that could add to the trepidation.

And I'm sorry about the priest thing- you mentioned your parish a lot and called people Father and so forth, it was just a total brain fart if I attributed this to you.

God's peace.

The Holy Spirit is a Christian term for God's Spirit that is known in all places, times, and contexts, by many names. I call her Spirit because it is more personal than calling Her "the Holy spirit", just like calling God is more personal than "the Father."

I'm assuming that God isn't self-contradictory, that God doesn't give two mutually exclusive orders ("Practice CWOB!" "Don't practice CWOB!") at the same time.

Hmmm. I think BOTH "Practice CWOB!" and "Don't practice CWOB!" faith-claims are covers for something DEEPER (probably deeper anxieties, as the obsessiveness of Certain Persons on this thread suggests).

I don't think either of these positions are the MOST IMPORTANT issues facing TEC (which I suppose will lead to Both Sides saying "Oh, JCF must be on The Other Side". I just want to be on Jesus's Side. And I don't pretend to KNOW which that is---though again, I believe Jesus finds a Way to be on everyone's side. Especially our opponent's!).

JC Fisher

I disagree that I am obsessive or operate from a place of anxiety. I think the the root of all attempts to "protect" the Holy and cling to a tradition are, in fact, at an deep level, rooted in fear, and fear is the opposite of love.

I also disagree that any particular controversy the church is facing such as this should be stepped over, particularly when it goes to the heart of the Gospel.

I further disagree that something can't be simultaneously true in one context and not in another. That perspective comes from privileging reason, a second-hand, man-made abstract process that is incapable of experiencing Truth at an ultimate level. Truth exceeds our ability to define or contain, we can only experience it and be guided by it and poetically attempt to express it in relevant contexts- which is why resting in Spirit and proceeding from a sacred center of faith, hope, and love, based in mutual affection between Us and the Beloved, is a better way and more authentic way (when Jesus is the standard) to live the Christian faith than pouring over various ancient texts in a dogmatic attempt to find God's Voice. We can learn from the past but must taste and see that the Lord is good ourselves.

If we don't, we're living a mausoleum style faith that eventually isn't going to be relevant to where people and God actually are now.

Thank you, Josh, for explaining the "Spirit" thing. I'm surprised that you find a generic term like "God" to be more personal than a relational one like "Father," though.

I usually call priests Father/Mother out of affectionate respect for the priesthood, in real life as well as in line. And I talk about my parish a lot because it's my primary contact with the larger Church, I'm pretty involved in it (vestry, acolyte, devotional societies) and I think it's a great place: http://www.sstephens.org/index.html

It is too bad that the original story neglected to mention that the Diocese of North Carolina has submitted a resolution calling for a study of the question, rather than simply asking us to overturn 2000 years of practice. We recognized that there is a disconnect between our canonical statements (which some feel is incorrectly located in the canons) and widespread practice. When such a divide exists, it is time to examine the reasons why and then suggest a course of action. This move is premature.

Using "God" or "Spirit" allows me to flow between the many different biblical images of God.

I guess you could say that like my love of God and humanity is, like one author described MLK "wonderfully impersonal." (recently I've conceptualized God as a "transpersonal person). I do Marian devotion and fixed hour prayer so I don't have a problem with the personal terms in a devotional setting,

Alongside Tobias and Derek, I think we are asking the wrong questions:

http://contemplativevernacular.blogspot.com/2012/03/cwob-asking-wrong-questions.html

More frequent baptisms could be a blessing- but it could be that baptism will remain a sacrament that one undergoes after formation, as formal entry into the Church, especially as TEC has the Baptismal Covenant. For now, TOC (truly open communion) is functioning as the first line sacrament in many contexts. Back in the day, in a society closer to nature, water was "around" a lot more, so to speak. As one poster said, we have to be sensitive to the changing needs of the Christian community- baptism and eucharist are both instituted by Jesus, but in his own life and practice, his first encounter with others was usually at Table (although He instructed his disciples to baptize when they entered towns as well).

I just want to take slight issue with the article in the following way:

"there is the hope that any receiving by a non-baptized person will lead to follow up to draw the person to receive God’s indissoluble embrace."

I strongly object to the earlier posts that seem to suggest that non-Christian people are not God's "people" in the way we are. As Bishop Spong once said, the problem with the idea of a chosen people is that everyone else is unchosen, and this belief, the dark side of monotheism, has caused enormous pain and suffering in our world.

Baptism is indeed an indissoluble covenant, but ALL people and all of Creation is already the recipient of God's indissoluble embrace, as first hand ways of knowing, much of Scripture, and the Incarnation make plain.

God is not a Christian, and there is no Christian God.

God would be a respector of persons, and I would have no use for that God, because my ability to love and give unconditionally would exceed this God's.

The Christian faith is a Way into the larger Reality of God's Love that suffuses the Whole and holds the Whole in tender, unending embrace. Baptism, like Eucharist, is a particular celebratory instantiation amongst the tribe of the Christians of this larger Reality.
This radically inclusive vision underlies much of my other posts (such as hotdog bun communion, which can be legitimate) and the call for TOC more broadly.

Josh, You have made some very good points in this thread, but the creeds that our Episcopal faith is built around and relies on says that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Our texts and beliefs say that no one comes to the father except through him (Christ). In other words, our faith teaches that God is reached through Christ - we are Christian because God tells us to be. If Christianity is not the sole way to salvation, then why bother with church at all?

Claire, I can't even begin to address your point here, but if you'd like to talk by email or something let me know. There are probably fundamental differences in our understanding of faith, creed, Jesus, christ, john 14:6, that I'd be happy to discuss in a more private place (or maybe on another thread).

In a nutshell though, nothing in the Christian faith requires us to limit only to the Christian community, or deny Her saving activity elsewhere. The official position of TEC is inclusivism, though I go a step farther into what one theologian calls ("Christocentric pluralism).

I think that at 200 posts, this thread has poetically ran its course.

Godspeed in your faith journey

Josh, the official position of the Episcopal Church, insofar as those statements are honored, are there in the constitutions and canons, and in the BCP. You can follow Jack Spong off into a solipcism of roll-your-own-heresy if you want, as neither I nor anyone else can stop you; but, as he did, trying to co-opt the institution to your advantage is quite beyond the pale. There is no real point to Christianity as a faith, much less to the church as an institution, if institutional theological memory counts for nothing. Communion, after all, is anamnesis; that is the second half of the act, the part that goes beyond simple consumption of the transcending material. And given that rebellion is the first recorded sin, your adoption of it as a guiding principle makes me wary of anything you say. I don't see that there's anything I can learn from you that I can't learn better by ignoring your teachings. You present yourself as a prophet, but that's just not what I hear.

Oh good- thank you for calling me a heretic! That means I must be hitting the right cord after all. If your nightmarish version of "Christianity" is not threatened by what I've been saying I'm probably doing something wrong. Furthermore, it means I'm taking after Jesus, who was heretical to his own tradition when he needed to be and gave space to each of his disciples' different personalities and perspectives.

I regard theological diversity as a blessing and part of God's beauty and purpose for this world. Everything God does in this world She does in a Trinitarian way- with an underlying unity and with a concomitant joyful dance of difference to more fully express and celebrate that unity. The origin of diversity is the inner life of God Herself.

As Father John Cornyne has said, fundamentalism is a plague, so f you want to spit in the face of God's children who re different than you, that's your prerogative, but don't delude yourself into thinking that you represent a legitimate spiritual position.

C-

In the last few minutes I have been troubled in my spirit by Bishop Spong's own Christlike response to accusatory remarks such as yours, time and again. In all of the years I have seen him, I have never seen him return vitriol for vitriol, so in that respect I have a lot of growing up to do, while I stand by the substance of my remarks.

Your hatred towards Spong and other religious liberals is unacceptable. I do not agree with everything he writes, and I am much less of a rationalist then he is. But he is an honorable man, and is in love with God, Jesus and humanity- in the religion where God is Love that should matter more than anything else.

Your "perspective" if you will on the Christian faith demonstrates clearly what Bede Griffiths said once: If Christianity cannot recover its inner tradition, it should fold up shop because it has nothing to offer. For whatever reason, the Christian mythos becomes extremely dangerous and toxic when the living heart of the faith is ignored, in a way that other religions just become ineffective and uncompelling.

In your reference to Genesis, you forget that even before Genesis 3 there are two wonderful stories about God's love for people and Creation and our sacred task of partnering with God. This call to love, growth, creativity should frame any discussion of sin. (BTW there is a strand of midrash that says the exit from the garden was painful but necessary part of Creation, and Genesis 3 should be interpreted as children "leaving the nest" of unity with God to grow up).

My prayer for both of us is that one day we will let go of the fear that keeps us both from living into the infinite Love that is God more fully.

C. Wingate,

The church is not unchanging. Constitution and Canons and General Conventions have been changed, have evolved, have been overturned - how ever one wants to image it. The General Convention after the Civil War refused to address the ending of slavery and the place of freed slaves in the church, making a mass exodus of African American Episcopalians from our church. We were wrong. We have come to an understanding of baptism and the wholeness of the Body that won't allow us to bar women and LGBT people from ministry, a change of heart and (some would say) a reversal of tradition and (some said and still say) contradiction of scripture. Rebelliousness? Like what Jesus does quoting scripture only to contradict it?

Josh, I do not agree that Spong is an honorable man; I believe that he has used his title for gain, and that if he were honorable he would have renounced his orders some time before he retired. But that is really beside the point. What is not beside the point is that I don't agree with his program!

Likewise, your "you disagree with me, therefore I'm right" style of argumentation is unconvincing. You don't really argue from scripture, and therefore you can't really argue from tradition (and indeed you seem to start from a position that tradition is to be assumed to be wrong, because it's institutional), so you don't really have anything to reason with except bald assertions. My reading of your argument is that your version of God is to be preferred because he's nicer than anyone else's, or that you have some personal revelation which overrules everyone else's testimony. Well, maybe well all have our own revelations, and as for niceness, I think accuracy is the more interesting standard. If you think God isn't nice enough, well, then either fix your standards or go and rebel; but take it somewhere else. Make your own institution and quit trying to ruin mine.

Why not drop the sacrament of ordination too while we're at it? It's too "exclusive", isn't it?.. :-/

Josh, no one who is serious about the spiritual life ever finishes with formation. There's always more to learn, more growing to do. As a result, although significant formation will ideally precede baptism, baptism can be properly
administered to anyone willing to take the vows. Further, if baptism is more easily obtained, the issue before us dissolves, since those receiving are so much less likely to be unbaptized.

Additionally, there is a big difference between someone who has refused baptism and someone isn't baptized because no one has ever suggested that they ought to get baptized. In the former case, they probably shouldn't receive communion and quite possibly don't want to receive communion. In the later case, there isn't anything wrong with them receiving in ignorance of what they're committing themselves to (God always has mercy on babes and fools), although we shouldn't leave them in ignorance after we find out how new they are to the faith. It's like the situation for partnered gay clergy, as long as they can't be married there isn't any offense being committed by the couple not being married, but when gay marriage becomes legal they must decide whether or not to be legally bound to their commitment to their partner and it says something troubling if they refuse to be so bound.

Jonathan Galliher