Looks like one thing went well, thank you Jesus!

I'm disappointed because most of the communities I associate with are still illicit in their practices, but I suppose the language is a bit broad if General Convention isn't prepared for the whole denomination to go Open Table. Is there any context in which an advocate for open Communion wouldn't argue that pastoral sensitivity demands accepting unbaptized communicants?

When we do go Open Table, and it does seem to me to be a matter of when and not if, I do wonder if we will make provisions for "various local contexts" in which it is for whatever reason appropriate to require baptism for communion.

The sad thing is that the resolution without the pastoral provision maintains a broken status quo, not just one in which a large number of parishes are engaged in illicit practices. It's that we don't provide any reason for requiring baptism, even this resolution simply affirms that the requirement is ancient and normative. That says nothing in and of itself, as we aren't an archeological church, we are a theological one. There are many ways to articulate the theology of initiation behind requiring baptism before communion, and this long-unbaptized communicant appreciated them where they were present, which is not the majority of parishes of the Episcopal Church. In an increasingly asacramental church which seeks to replace mystery with socio-political certitude, the indignity of refusing communion to the unbaptized is all that the official church policy gets us. And the sense of exclusion and being wronged that many unbaptized feel is quite justified. If we are not going to be pastorally-sensitive in welcoming all to the table, we must at least be sensitive to the experience of the unbaptized and provide some pastoral instruction, some reason, some very good reason, for asking them to wait.

This is bishops doing their job. I am praying they will continue to do it.

How is it exclusion? Baptism is the most "inclusive" thing there is. Salvation through Jesus Christ is the most "inclusive" thing there is. His Blood covers ALL, ALL who would confess their sins and their faith in Him. And it's sad that one would even have to draw up a resolution to affirm that.

Thank you Juli for a well written and common sense approach to this.I am always amazed at the people who cling to the legalistic aspects of the church which were created by man, and forget the simple attitude of Christ.He would have an open table for everyone.End of discussion. Less control, more love and care.

jrsyboy1957 - Please sign your name next time you comment. ~ed.

The only thing that is "maintain[ing] a broken status quo" is that priests who justify breaking the canon will continue to do so, and bishops who now ignore these canonical violations will in all likelihood continue to do so. In other words, what's broken is that the forty year old rule, that discipline is not for progressives, will continue to apply.

As someone baptized, confirmed and a regular weekly communicant, I have been bothered by the exclusivity of the "insider" group that I seem to be de facto a member of. Since I have begun to struggle with this, I am wondering if it makes more sense for me to simply stop receiving for a while as a kind of spiritual fast. Although it pains me a bit as a former Anglocatholic to say it, I wonder if the we made a mistake making the Eucharist our regular Sunday observance? Maybe we should be back to Morning Prayer where anyone can fully participate. Should I be "chowing down" on a feast at the same time that we push hungry "outsiders" away because they do not conform to me or the "church universal Holy Catholic and Apostolic for ever and ever AMEN's" way of doing things? I am probably just angry, but the vitriolic gloating of the 'get baptized dammit' party bothers me. If we cannot agree to give communion to everyone, then we should fully admit this and make it clear that is our fault, not that of the unbaptized. Sorry to vent, I'm just a bit disappointed that we could not find any room for dissent here when we are bending ourselves into pretzels to accommodate the "poor marginalized" people who are setting themselves on fire over SSBs.

I've struggled to find words for my thoughts all day, and now Jeffrey has done it for me.

Pamela Grenfell Smith
Bloomington, Indiana

Jeffrey,

I appreciate your identifying the odd tone we've had around the edges of this conversation. I've been frustrated at the determination of some adamant voices to describe the thoughts, experience, and practice of congregations, converts, and new newly baptized people they can't imagine exist - people who came to the table first, who were moved by a welcome, who were drawn to holy mystery and literally wanting to be 'in communion' before they had more words and understanding to go with it. In The Hospitality of God Bishops Mary Gray Reeves (El Camino Real) and Michael Perham (Gloucster, U.K.) wrote of what they found in traveling around the U.S. and Britain visiting new congregations, emergent, missionary congregations. One near constant was a practice of welcoming all to the table. Many of the skeptics and critics of the practice seem determined to insist that this is out of scorn for baptism. In my experience these are baptizing congregations. Skeptics and critics invoke discipleship as a neglected goal. I know plenty of remarkable, faithful, and courageous disciples whose path began by receiving communion. Oddly, some of the 'theology' we're hearing this conversation flat rejects experience. Is that where Anglicanism is going?

I can't think of a change in the church's history that began with reasoned debate and due process legislation from bishops or a church council. Maybe that's just not the Spirit's way.

I hope that rather than staying away from communion, you'll welcome those occasions you come across to enjoy and thank congregations that persist in welcoming all to Jesus' table in Jesus' name.

And I'll be interested to see what the House of Deputies does with the bishops' strange amendment to this piece of legislation that seems determined to deny (or hide) what many arguing for clear teaching of baptism first insist is a commonplace, 'of course we'd never check credentials or turn anyone away a the rail.'

In spite of the headline, I don't see where the resolution affirms baptism as a requirement for communion. It states that baptism is ancient and normative but in a local context it does not seem to suggest that it is anything like a requirement. On the contrary, it may be done away with as a requirement if a local pastor sees fit.

Annie Bullock

Jeffrey, I used to be Anglo-Catholic too and now find the sacraments far less appealing today than the daily office. Those who are not ordained can do the daily office without clergy. The bishops will do what bishops do: manufacture history, as in claiming baptism is "the ancient and normative entry point."

I wish they had said they simply don't think it wise to do open communion. The appeal to history is flimsy an tautological. "This is the way we have always done it" is sometimes a recipe for disaster in many businesses.

A "broken status quo" seems to describe this denomination very well, both in a good and bad sense.

As in the case of language, the practice will evolve no matter what the prescriptivists say. The great vowel shift in English between 1350 and 1700, for example, was a natural development that could not have been stopped. If the living tradition is moving toward open communion, then there is not much that can be done to prevent it. A tradition that could not change would be dead. Latin has lovely grammar but is dead.

Gary Paul Gilbert

As a continuing Anglo-Catholic, I believe that the Church - while upholding the doctrine of Baptism as the normative entry to Holy Communion; there may be occasions when pastoral sensitivity needs to be observed by the clergy.

I remember an outdoor service in Christchurch after the recent quakes, when local people gathered to receive comfort offered by the Eucharist. All were welcomed to received the Body and Blood of Christ, and I'm sure that some of the people were not part of the normal parish family, but the occasion prompted the Celebrant to welcome ALL who wished to come & receive Christ in the Sacrament.

Who among us would have had the temerity to refuse anyone who came to receive?
Not me, anyway. Granted, one hopes that the experience would spark in the unbaptized a thirst for Baptism. Who can tell who might be drawn in by the radical hospitality involved?

One remembers in Acts, a group of people who had received the Spirit without seemingly being baptised! This must have puzzled the early Christians, too!

Are we Gate-keepers, or are we open to seekers?

Do we know if the House of Deputies concurred with the amended resolution?

The House of Deputies actually did concur. I was shocked,personally.

Gary Paul Gilbert writes: "The bishops will do what bishops do: manufacture history, as in claiming baptism is 'the ancient and normative entry point.'"

The bishops aren't manufacturing anything here. Baptism IS "the ancient and normative entry point" into life in the church. Of course, there are times when someone receives communion and is later baptized, but the Eucharist finds its fullest meaning and expression as the communion of the gathered Body of Christ. How are we made members of the Body of Christ? Baptism. This is not some fake history manufactured in a back room by a bunch of bishops trying to find nefarious ways to gain greater control over people. There is a whole slew of historical and theological reasons to maintain the normative pattern of Baptism THEN Communion, and they can't simply be boiled down to "that's the way we've always done it."

Tom Sramek, the HoD did concur with the amended resolution, after a motion to re-refer to committee, which failed.

I personally support this clear statement from the General Convention. The next steps are for those of us in the church to find much better ways to explain and teach about this.

I wish they had said they simply don't think it wise to do open communion. The appeal to history is flimsy an tautological.

As is "our Lord Jesus Christ calls us to go into the world and baptize all peoples": NO credible Biblical scholar believes *Jesus of Nazareth* literally said the words of Matthew 28:19! ["The ink's still wet on that one", I recall an Episcopal priest telling me in Bible study many years ago. ;-/]

***

This resolved just about the way I thought it would. Closed Eucharists will remain closed, Open Eucharists will (Shhhhh!) remain open. Delicious, delicious Episcopal Fudge.

There ARE more important things than this question. [Yet the fudge clogs the arteries, too.]

JC Fisher

Nicole, we are not always on opposite sides!

Juli, most of the Anglican churches in the Americas practice an open table. But you have your terminology incorrect. What most of us don't practice is Communion before Baptism, which you are advocating. Open Communion is the invitation to all baptized Christians to partake of the table. My question is, why aren't the unbaptized hungering for baptism? What are the parishes that you are involved in doing to actually bring folks to the body of Christ, which is by baptism? We are an inclusive church, all all welcome to the waters of baptism and then afterward invited to the table to feed on the body of Christ.

Bro David

It will be interesting how parishes respond. I think brings a question of authority. The canons, the prayer book, scripture, and tradition are all clear that baptism comes before communion. By what authority do we act?

Some will no doubt say I don't care if General Convention just spoke on this issue I am going to continue with what I have been doing. (These same people also probably argued GC is the only voice able to respond to the Anglican Communion)

I love this resolution. It is one of the most evangelical statements we have made. Baptism is the entrance to the table, now go baptize some people, make disciples, proclaim the good news. That is real inclusivity.

It's sad that this resolution was even debated. We don't change core doctrine because it hurts someone's feelings. If someone desires communion, let him or her first be joined with Christ and his Church. The Eucharistic assembly just us the Body of baptized Christians, gathered in the Spirit. Others may now witness the rite but not participate.

Make that. Just is

"The Eucharistic assembly just is the Body of baptized Christians, gathered in the Spirit."

Also present is Christ's extended family- the whole of Creation- whom we are all part of unconditionally. Truly Open Communion is a Christlike act that, BTW, results in more baptisms than the wagon circling policy.

Or maybe we're just back to "protecting" the Holy- from whom??

This is not about failing to teach about Baptism, or offering Baptism, it's about a newcomer hearing Jesus saying - do this - remember me. It's about a longing that may be heard at any time,and is likely to be heard on a given Sunday when Eucharist is offered, or at a funeral or wedding. Do this, remember me. This is the requirement for receiving - if the person fulfilling the command to "do this," is not yet Baptized; has not yet become part of the community, that will be offered right along with spiritual support and theological training. Sometimes, perhaps even more and more in today's world, experience does come first - the experience of longing, the call to "do this." How can we stop this in the moment and say: Wait! you cannot fulfill Jesus' command and the longing in your heart until you fulfill the 'normative entry point.' Let's schedule that, shall we?
Peace.

Revellen - please sign your name when you comment Thanks ~ed.

Will the Baptized be issued papers as credentials for receiving communion? Maybe the DMV could note the same on my driver's license.

Fr. Schell, I do not appreciate your misrepresentation of the character of our opposition. And I must object to your presumption in dictating what I can or cannot conceive of. I in fact have a lot of quite close exposure to the fringes of Christian and non-Christian spirituality. I have no trouble believing that there are people who come and presume to take communion when they are unbaptized, even in the face of instruction to the contrary (which even in the most conservative parishes, BTW, I have never heard stated at any Eucharist). I have less trouble imagining spiritual dilettantes who commune with no thought towards membership in the church (and indeed with a repugnance towards the same), for I have met them in numbers.

There is no small amount of explanation of why the Eucharist is reserved to the baptized, in spite of the pretense that the only reason is "because we've always done that." The actual rejoinder here has always been that the spiritual nature of the Eucharist is such that the unbaptized should not be consuming it, and that therefore we should be advising the unbaptized along those lines. It has become extremely bothersome that this is flatly ignored, or that people imply that we want to do is bring back the practice whose vestige still lingers in Eastern rites. It's also bothersome when people make unwarrantable statements about what "reputable scholars" think, since reputation here is subjective as to which side of the argument one is on in the first place.

The message that should be being received is that inclusion of the unbaptized is going to have to work around this point, and that actual effort is going to have to be devoted to getting them baptized first. Inviting all comers is a lot easier, of course, but it's wrong to do so, and evangelism is just going to have to live with that.

I am very grateful that the bishops have spoken clearly on this issue. I believe the confusion we have had over the relationship between baptism and the Eucharist stems back several centuries to when we tore them apart. Originally, one was baptized and then led directly to the table. They were a united rite. (They still are with our Eastern Orthodox sisters and brothers.) Theologically and liturgically, baptism is inconceivable without the Eucharist and the Eucharist is inconceivable without baptism. It is not a matter of which comes before which but rather a matter of our attempts to break the indissoluble bond between them. I am grateful that our bishops have upheld that bond. Baptism is not about making us pure. Baptism is about identification with Christ, the Crucified-Risen One in our midst.

We can certainly be pastorally sensitive to certain situations. However, that is not what proponents of communion without baptism are calling for. They are calling for a public and permanent change to the Ordo. That I see as having huge repurcussions not only for our church but for our ecumenical relationships as well. There are many ways in which we can pastorally welcome people at services, and no one is calling for a show of certificates. That's just silly. However, a public and permanent change to the Ordo is not a small change at all.

In Christ,
Shawn Strout
Diocese of Washington

For C.Wingate:

I think it's more so that people don't want to do the hard work of actually sharing the faith and can't put it into words because they don't even know what it is themselves. The real change needs to happen in the parishes..having more adult education opportunities on scripture and the catechism. Not just for "newcomers" but for everyone, especially those in leadership positions. They should be in the front row. That the reason why we are left to these silly resolutions every three years based on nothing but emotional responses alone. Look where purely emotional responses have taken our church.

Joecarrel, I think you'll find that at least in the Episcopal Church the baptized already receive "papers" attesting to our status. They're called baptismal certificates. And no, no one's even hinting about carding people at the altar rail. The objection of most people opposed to CWOB really never was about keeping non-Christians away from Holy Communion so much as it was about issuing invitations to all and sundry, including casual visitors.

I'm happy for the way that this turned out, but hold no illusions about it changing anything. I expect those who disobey the canons and the BCP on this will continue to do so, while simultaneously insisting on a strict adherence to church law in areas of gender equity and ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

Bill Dilworth

Shawn, I agree the separation of baptism and the eucharist in the Western Church (and I would add confirmation, a third element in a proto-sacrament) makes receiving the eucharist before baptism possible/thinkable. Would you argue for following Greek practice and baptizing, confirming, and administering the eucharist to infants? That would lessen the chances of one receiving the eucharist before baptism. I don't think the bishops would be ready to give up confirmation, either. Martin Luther said it was unfortunate when bishops gave up the celebration of the sacrament and the preaching of the Word they took up confirmation, which is much less important. Confirmation has become almost a rite of passage, although it lost some status in 1979, when it was no longer required for the reception of the eucharist.

This debate reminds me of the prescriptive grammarians of English who sometimes denounce the split infinitive, without pointing out that because infinitives in English are two words as in "to V" that the split infinitive is a structural possiblity of English, unlike Latin, where infinitives are single words and therefore impossible. Are we to follow Greek practice even when we have split off from the Eastern Church?

C. Wingate, How, pray tell, does the nature of the eucharist preclude its reception before baptism. There are many different Anglican eucharistic theologies, as catalogued on the following website:

http://anglicaneucharistictheology.com/Anglican_Eucharistic_Theology/Welcome.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/7sk7w3w

Theology, like history, is very complicated.

In any case, open communion, whether one approves of it or not, will still be practiced because it is a structural possibility of the split up of baptism, confirmation, and the eucharist.

Western Christians are products of this split.

Gary Paul Gilbert

It distresses me that two wonderful gifts from God - baptism and Eucharist - are issues of contention amng such good people.

How about we all work together to find a via media on this issue? And please, don't stay away from the Eucharist. You are not only wanted at the altar rail, but needed there. You are needed in our community of faith.

Pax.

Kevin McGrane

Sorry GPG, I can't quite follow that logic; because Anglican churches are no longer following the Eastern pattern of baptism, confirmation & communion it justifies communion without baptism. But supposedly if we returned to this pattern it would solve the issue? It's not babies or even the children who are reported to be storming the table.

Bro David

David, My point is not that we should go back to Greek practice but that the horse has left the barn. It is a mess no matter what one does. The putative original unity is already broken.

In any case, I think there are more important questions than who gets to receive the eucharist. The church, alas, is viewed by many as a roof over an altar rather than the whole people of God! No wonder we have so many bishops and priests for so few people in the pews.

Gary Paul Gilbert

The question is not, and never was, who will be permitted to receive Communion at an Episcopal altar. It has never been our practice to question anyone or to refuse anyone who comes to receive, and there is one and only one circumstance in which a minister is expected -- permitted! -- so to refuse: the disciplinary rubrics on p. 409.

The fact that the question is being presented as though it were about permission is, I am sorry to say, either disingenuous on the part of those advocating on the one side, or evidence of a very serious failure in catechesis over the years, even among the faithfully committed (or both).

It's not about permission: it's about *invitation.* And the invitation we give is, "(These are) the Gifts of God for the People of God." Unlike some denominations, we do NOT go on, at that moment or at any moment, to comment about who we consider to be "People of God," and we most definitely do not say and have never said, "...for *and only for* the People of God."

We we do not, and never have done, at any time, in any sense, by any means, for any reason, give a DISinvitation. Any minister who has done so, explicitly or implicitly, has not been loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them. The only further comment is the optional further instruction and invitation, "Take them in remembrance that Christ died for you, and feed on him in your hearts by faith, with thanksgiving."

If we were to express any of this conditionally (as we do NOT), it would go something like this: "If you are a Person of God, these Gifts are for you. Come take them, making Christ's gift of his life for you then, real for you now (anamnesis, "remembrance")"

It's not a matter of who I consider to be one of the "People of God," or who the minister, or the bishop, or anyone else considers to be "the People;" it's whether your consider yourself to be one of "The People," and whether you are prepared to experience Christ's gift of his life in your life.

If so, well, the Spirit and the Bride say, "Come!" If not, come when you can, and let's talk in the meantime.

Where are the Pew &/or Gallup organizations when you really need them? Where's the poll that shows a substantial number of unbaptized persons attending Episcopal Eucharists feel deeply wronged at having to forego going to the Communion rail?

As was the case with many GC issues, knickers were getting mightily twisted over ... what?

“we don't provide any reason for requiring baptism” - Juli Mallett

Juli,

Explanations for a resolution are not included in the resolution as passed. And this one evolved considerably from what was innitially submitted.

But reasons have been presented. On this website:
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/theology/sacramental_theology_101_bapti.php

A variety of reasons for requiring baptism can be found here:
http://www.christchurchnh.org/communion-and-baptism-resource/

Matt Gunter
Diocese of Chicago

Scott,

While I would insist on our being agnostic about anyone's staus before God, we do in fact make a pretty clear distinction between those who are baptized and those who are not. Both the Rite of Holy Baptism and the Catechism make such a distinction. As do the canons.

The fact is that any explicit invitation to participate in the Eucharist regardless of baptism is disloyal to "the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them". And thus it is counter to the vows we who are ordained have taken.

Matt Gunter
Diocese of Chicago

“Many of the skeptics and critics of the practice seem determined to insist that this is out of scorn for baptism” - Donald Schell.

Donald,
I am sympathetic to your feeling misrepresented. I feel the same about a lot that comes from the advocates of CWOB.

I do not think you scorn baptism, though I do find it hard to square the practice of inviting the unbaptized to participate in Communion with the emphasis on baptism in the Book of Common Prayer.

My problem is not that those advocating such practice scorn baptism. Rather, I am convinced the practice is guided by a misinterpretation of Jesus (and the rest of the NT).

It is not about scorn for baptism, but it is about identity and mission, it is about ecclesiology, it is about what is and what isn’t actually hospitable.

http://intotheexpectation.blogspot.com/2009/12/baptized-into-eucharist.html

I am also concerned that the practice reflects and reinforces two of the great idols of our age: individualism and consumerism. And I wonder if its appeal has much to do with our having been indoctrinated by those two ‘isms’.

Matt Gunter
Diocese of Chicago

I'm Anglo-Catholic and strongly believe that ALL are welcome to the table. We know what Jesus would have done, we know the story of the Ethiopian Eunuch, someone who should NOT have been eligible for Baptism. If the Spirit calls people to the table, that's it.

It looks like the Bishop's fudged. I'm OK with that. It would probably be better if they said that all are welcome to come to the table, but the reality is that this is going to be a parish level decision.

"we know the story of the Ethiopian Eunuch, someone who should NOT have been eligible for Baptism."

And yet the very first thing Philip did after explaining the Gospel to him was baptize him. The Spirit seemed to be calling him to the water. Same with all the other Gentiles the Apostles welcomed into the Church.

- Alex Scott

Jesus could have left the banquet and eating talk at the loaves and fishes, at the feeding of the multitudes, but tradition tells us he didn't, but rather on the night he was handed over, etc. Bread and wine broken and poured in an intimate setting with those who are definitely a part of the community imparts the very body and blood of the Lord, the eating and drinking of which are INSEPARABLE from his high priesthood of offering himself as a sacrifice on the cross. In the ancient world, if you ate of a sacrifice, you bound yourself to this deity, and acknowledged your relationship to this deity, which is why "meat offered to idols" was a difficult and contentious issue. You eat the sacrifice, you have a relationship with the deity. This is a package deal, this is the Eucharist. This isn't just an all are welcome at the table, it is far more than that, because again, we could have stopped with Jesus Feeding the Five (also Four) Thousand and been fine, had a lovely religion, simple and much less, um, "spooky". But Jesus didn't stop there, and neither did we. The Sacrifice was offered not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world, to be sure, and not just on a "I'm sorry I lied to mommy" sort of "given for you" level. Receiving the body and blood, you are truly reconciled to one another and to God, you really are. The Sacrament embodies (pun intended) that mysterious Other Power (as the Pure Land Buddhists would say) that seals the deal, that pushes forward repairs in relationships both Here and There which we cannot accomplish with our Self Power alone. This is serious business, not just nice teachings.

Clint, Tradition is not an eyewitness account.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Tradition certainly can come from eye witness accounts.

Bro David

The argument for CWOB based on Jesus' table fellowship with " sinners" seems, frankly, wrongheaded, in that it assumes that the prostitutes and publicans he ate with are types of the unbaptized. They are not. The corollary to the unbaptized in Jesus' ministry is the Gentile, not the "sinner." All those prostitutes and tax collectors were Jews; on several occasions Jesus makes it clear that non-Jews were outside his purview. If Jesus is in favor of CWOB, his table fellowship simply doesn't have much to say on the subject. He consistently limited his ministry to those who were members of the Jewish community.

Besides being wrongheaded, it strikes me as condescending in that it suggests that non-Christians - the unbaptized - are societal outcasts. "Why,of course you're welcome at the altar - after all, Out Lord ate with harlots and collaborators with the enemy, so there's ample precedent..." It suggests that it's moral purity that separates communicants from non-communicants under the status quo, but we'll graciously overlook that because Jesus did/would. The difference between the baptized and the unbaptized is not primarily a moral one, but is based in being a member (or not) of Christ's Body.