Hmmm. I personally have real issues with the whole open communion thing. At its best it's a misunderstanding and at its worst a distortion of our sacramental theology.

Is it really about inclusiveness or about a capitulation to a cultural demand for instant gratification? Is there value in making a covenant commitment to something?

I believe that moving formally to "open communion" would have an effect on some of our existing ecumenical agreements. (Or at least so I've been told by people who should know.)

Helen, thanks so much. I've also just picked up this book. When we talk about open table in terms of 'hospitality,' we don't mean good Southern manners and glossy postcard campaigns. Hospitality means encountering the human being standing before you with as much of the love and grace of Jesus Christ as you can. Jesus ate with all kinds of in appropriate people, and we believe that he gave his body for the life of the world, not just for the life of those who have been baptized. Who am I to make rules about who can come to Jesus' table when we share communion?

I confess--I'm totally on the side of open communion.

Maybe we can pick it up for our next Mesh, Susan. :D

I'm totally on the side of open baptism... :-)

Derek--absolutely. In theory, if we're welcoming people to the table, but not to the font as well, then we've missed a crucial step in educating people about who we are and why we do sacraments at all.

And/but: In reality, people show up at the rail every Sunday whom I've never seen before; I don't know who's baptized and who isn't. I wouldn't dream of quizzing them, and probably neither would anyone else. I suppose it's partly a matter of bothering to get to know those new folks and being willing to offer/model baptism as a real and spiritual event for adults, and not just as a family rite of passage for infants.

Friends, thanks for this discussion. I want to clarify that I don't see open communion as merely an opportunity for churches to be "nice" or to practice a well-meaning "cultural inclusivity" for the benefit of their visitors' feelings.

I see it as an expression of the fact that the Table belongs to God, not to any denomination; that Christ's body is not the property of any temporal authority. Open communion is an opportunity for us to align ourselves with God's vision of creation; to humbly participate in that unwordly reality in its incomprehensible fullness...instead of trying to fence in, control or manage God's grace.
Sara

Derek - If you knew Rick Fabian and Donald Schell, the co-rectors at Miles' church, then you'd know that there is absolutely nothing misunderstood or distorted about their decision to practice "open" communion. For starters, the table they use is one that was crafted for that church with "Jesus ate with sinners" carved in Greek in the base.

In her book Sara quotes a paper Rick wrote about this practice: "Jesus abandoned baptizing and instead sought out, welcomed, and dined with unprepared, unreformed, unwashed sinners. His action was a prophetic sign suiting his own more radical message: here comes God now, ready or not!...our common life dare not hide Jesus' chosen sign, whatever the risk, or we will forfeit our apologetic for Christian faith in a world where spiritual hunger and spiritual alternatives abound. How can we tell people today what we believe about Christ, and yet keep his table fellowship in the way he distinctly refused to keep it?"

So, this is not about instant gratification but about instant radical apocalyptic welcome.

Miles also addresses the issue of "now what" when she says, "Taste and See the Bible said, and I did. I was tasting a connection between communion and food - between my burgeoning religion and my real life. My first, questioning year at church ended with a question whose urgency would propel me into work I'd never imagined: Now that you've taken the bread, what are you going to do?"

Miles, with the help of the St. Gregory's community, makes the best argument for open communion that I've ever found. They get the interrelationship between baptism, communion, and catechesis without locking them into a particular linear order. I'm sold.

Jennifer McKenzie+

Jennifer+,
Thanks for your thoughts on this. Susan+ and I are currently discussing a public conversation on this topic on the site so I hope to answer your reflections more fully at a later time. For the moment I'd offer two points for reflection.
First, the baptismal ministry of Jesus in his incarnate time with us is not precisely the same as Christian baptism. It may seem strange to say that, but the Scriptures--particularly John and Luke-Acts--seem to affirm this.
Second, both Sara and the paper she cites refer to "our common life." You as well mention the St. Gregory's community. I would think that the discussion should begin there... There is a crucial interconnection between Baptism, Eucharist and catechesis and a linear order does not lock but rather illumines them.

The paper Jennifer mentions by Rick Fabian can be found at:
http://www.saintgregorys.org/Liturgy/Writings/FirsttheTable.html
along with other writings on baptism and open communion.

Thanks, Sara! I look forward to reading these.

Derek,
To Sara's offer of articles I'd like to add two from the All Saints 2002 issue of OPEN, the journal of Associated Parishes - http://associatedparishes.org/ListOfArticles.aspx
Sara wrote one for that issue and I wrote another. Mine was responding to a fellow AP member's argument baptism after communion had no theological significance.
We base our argument on Jesus' practice and teaching as we aim for a close, reading of the Gospels that heeds contemporary scholarship. One significant consensus among numbers of contemporary Gospel scholars is that Jesus' table practice is what got him crucified. Jesus Blessed Community was considered blasphemous and a direct attack on efforts to create a righteous, observant community. The Gospel writers don't have Jesus expound on John's baptism (his own baptismal experience and the baptismal practice he didn't continue. Instead, Jesus speaks of 'my baptism' referring forward to the crucifixion. In the article I argue that, if Jesus didn't baptize his disciples, but practiced table fellowship at the prophetic/messianic banquet as his sign of inclusion, that Jesus' crucifixion - outside the walls, accursed, wholly identified with those 'beyond' salvation is the Gospel significance of baptism. Were the disciples baptized as they began the resurrection mission in Jesus' name? We don't know, of course, but the early church regularly argues that we are baptized because Jesus was baptized, and for those who had been originally welcomed to his table and 'got it,' this choice to be bearers of the mission (and its risk) makes sense of Jesus in the Gospels asking the disciples (with whom he is already keeping the prophetic feast) - are you ready for my baptism?
Rick and I have not focused on open communion as hospitable (us extending welcome) but humbling and formational - - - for us, the gathered community and each of us in it. The point of Jesus' prophetic sign isn't that he's unwilling to turn people away but that he aggressively welcomes the unprepared, notorious sinners, and enemies, and their welcome to his fellowship and in the kingdom is what makes us welcome.

Thank you again! Personally, I'd *never* say that baptism has no theological significance despite the circumstances. I too believe strongly in the radical welcome of Jesus into a Spirit-rooted community--we seem to have different stances on the nature and bounds of his fellowship and the signs of the kingdom.

All,

Thanks for continuing the discussion. Admittedly, this is a topic that I wrestled with all through seminary and one that is still worthy of much thought and debate for me.

Derek - I would love to hear/read/see more about this when you and Susan+ "go public" with it. I'm so glad y'all are planning that.

For now, I am returning to Gordon Lathrop's "Holy Things" as a starting point for another look at this as well as the papers that Donald and Rick have thoughtfully prepared.

Donald+ - glad to see you in on this conversation, too along with Sara.

Hope you'll continue to contribute here - it's good to "hear" your voice!

Peace,
Jennifer McKenzie

Jennifer+,
I think the exact plans are still in flux but don't worry--this is definitely a topic we shall have to revisit! :-)

It will come as no surprise to those who know me including online that on this I agree with Derek.

As a born Anglican of course I came from a closed-Communion church (!) so I don't find that rule freakish or uncharitable.

As for 'open Communion' like Derek I prefer to use that expression to describe things like the Episcopal Church's rule: all baptised Christians (to which TEC's rule adds something like 'who believe in the Real Presence and are prepared'): sensible whether one agrees or not.

Again, closed Communion makes sense in a Catholic church. Some of you like me may remember the old Anglican rules: you must be confirmed or, if confirmed in another Catholic church, received by the bishop: fair ’nuff. That said, as most of you know, in practice most places don't 'card' you at the altar rail or quiz you on your beliefs or preparation so 'all baptised Christians' is really the Anglican norm now. You're on your honour to be honest about presenting yourself at the rail.

Actually I was introduced to 'open Communion', as Derek and TEC officially mean it, by my old rector ages ago, who was traditional from his mozetta to his 39-button cassock (based on me you can imagine his views on Controversial Issues™) yet, shall we say, very 'non-Lefebvrist' about who he gave Communion to!

Actually in the Orthodox Church, a closed-Communion church with whom Anglicans historically have been keen on good relations, the priest is said to 'guard the chalice', IIRC something he promises to do at his ordination, and if he doesn't know you will ask you a few questions before deciding to commune you. (As traditional Orthodox often don't receive at every Liturgy this isn't as time-consuming as it would be in an Anglican setting.)

Anyway, Communion without Baptism makes no sense. One way of putting it is by doing so you're saying there's a relationship with God and the community that is not in fact there.