Support the Café

Search our Site

Is ‘open table’ the next big controversy?

Is ‘open table’ the next big controversy?

It’s befuddling – to me, at least – that The Christian Post, in having had the same amount of time to look over resolutions proposed for Indianapolis this summer as everyone else, has decided to highlight resolution C040, which promotes “open table” by eliminating Canon I.17.7, the requirement of baptism as necessary for reception of Holy Communion.

It’s befuddling because given the sort of the things an organization like this professes about itself in its Statement of Faith; given who and what it endorses through its membership in organizations like the National Association of Evangelicals; given that its current lead story is about walking that fine line of “loving the sinner and hating the sin”; … given all these things, you’d think there would be greater interest in some of the other material presented for consideration by General Convention. (In March, The Post did raise its eyebrows when “I Will bless You, and You Will Be a Blessing” was floated.) Compared to the idea that The Episcopal Church may be preparing to unapologetically alter its liturgy to honor and bless all persons’ unions regardless of their sexual orientation, open table seems pretty tame. Again – at least to me.

So, why open table? I have to think that a finite number of admittedly overlapping possibilities is in play here:

1. It’s getting on near summer and the news cycle is slowing down, and C040 was one of the few resolutions on the GC web site to offer supporting material, making it easier for the reporter to flesh out; or

2. People in general and evangelicals in particular may have just grown bone-weary of being beaten up over the issue of the church’s role in promoting marriage equality; or

3. Open communion could actually be a really big deal because the idea of it for some controverts a traditionally held view of the order of sacraments, the construction of baptismal and ecclesial identity, and so on; and this is an issue taking place around a liturgical church but still “large enough to be seen from space” – or at any rate, the offices of The Christian Post.

If we want to take the third possibility into serious consideration, then we’ll want, too, to examine the substance of the resolution’s rationale. Here’s a small part of it:

Grace as mediated in the Sacrament of Eucharist, is nourishment for our redemptive work in and with human systems, most especially the very one we have been charged with stewarding.

This redemptive work cannot be done only by those within the system but must involve people outside the system. Therefore, when people feel called to our Table we, as stewards of our Table, are called to welcome them so that we might work together towards redemption. This is not to proclaim that all people are “anonymous Christians,” but it is to say that as Christians, we more than anyone should know that the mystery of our Sacraments is beyond our ability to comprehend and, by implication, beyond our ability to contain. Our location as Christians enables us to identify the Holy Spirit at work, not to own it. Nonetheless, we are wholly responsible for stewarding this Table, not to create boundaries as if we could protect the Sacrament, but to point to it and translate to all who come among us that God is incarnate in the flesh of the Son. And we must not be wary, but faithful that the Holy Spirit is present and guiding those who come, while we bring our ministry of service and hospitality to our most sacred place.

The authors’ intent (the lege is from the Diocese of Eastern Oregon) is for something more than the rote argument for hospitality, necessary as that is; they’re casting Open Table, in this small section, as an outworking of how stewardship of what God is given is perceived and wrought. That may be an argument already said more plainly somewhere else (the authors very much like a Spring 2009 Anglican Theological Review article by Stephen Edmondson), but it moves the question of open table out of its typical range about just being nice to strangers, and it moves it into a place of consideration at a decision-making level for the whole of The Episcopal Church.

Perhaps it is that in a standard perusal of convention materials, the Post writer’s antenna was raised by a fairly startling call to move into a new way of seeing something that’s been perceived in a static way for many years.


Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gary Paul Gilbert

I agree Bill, 1662 is more penitential. I have never seen the 1662 used in a service in this country.

Order one does not require the remembrance clause.

The link is

For example, in order One:

Draw near with faith. Receive the body of our Lord Jesus Christ which he gave for you, and his blood which he shed for you. Eat and drink in remembrance that he died for you,and feed on him in your hearts by faith with thanksgiving.


Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.Blessed are those who are called to his supper.

All: Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof, but speak the word only and my soul shall be healed.


God’s holy gifts for God’s holy people.

All: Jesus Christ is holy,

Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

OR from Easter Day to Pentecost

Alleluia. Christ our passover issacrificed for us.

All: Therefore let us keep the feast. Alleluia.

Order two has no real options.

other than the possibility of selecting when to say the words. The rubrics say the words need not be spoken to each person.

“Or, when occasion requires, these words may be said once to each row of communicants, or to a convenient number within each row.”

Gary Paul Gilbert

Bill Dilworth

Gary, I’ve only been to one celebration of Holy Communion in which the 1662 BCP was used. My main impression was that it entailed a lot more kneeling than either of the American BCPs with which I’m familiar.

Do either of the Common Worship orders make allowance for omitting the “remembrance” clause?

Gary Paul Gilbert

Bill, Common Worship (2000) still strikes a balance between Catholic and Calvinist theologies. Order one (which is the contemporary language version in the Church of England) has as its first option:

“Draw near with faith. Receive the body of our Lord Jesus Christ which he gave for you, and his blood which he shed for you. Eat and drink in remembrance that he died for you, and feed on him in your hearts by faith with thanksgiving.”

Order Two has

The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee,preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving.

The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee,preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.

Drink this in remembrance that Christ’s blood was shed for thee, and be thankful.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Gary Paul Gilbert

I was speaking of the 1662, which was the standard for centuries. Rite II in the 1979 attempts to clean things up.

For many reasons I am more a 1662 partisan.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Bill Dilworth

“No, there is always the ambiguous demonstrative “this,” a remnant of…”

Not always. In the American BCP the 1662 form you quote is only one of several options (and isn’t found at all in Rite II). The others are either the 1549 “realist” form, or “The Body of Christ, the bread of heaven” and “The Blood of Christ, the cup of salvation. “

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café