It was good to hear the keynote speaker—Dr. Louis Weil—at this year’s “Epiphany West” conference come out strongly against so-called “open communion” (communion of the un-baptized). That was especially courageous here in California where the practice is becoming widespread.

Cautioning against “playing God at the altar rail” (meaning that he would never turn anyone away from communion), Dr. Weil nonetheless believes that this practice trivializes baptism and wonders why, after all the years reclaiming its centrality, we would now want to make it virtually optional.

The theme of this conference has been “Baptismal Water: Thicker Than Blood” and we have looked at baptism through a variety of lenses—liturgical, ecumenical, and missional. Dr. Weil, of course, has taught generations of clergy and laity about the important rediscovery of a baptismal ecclesiology, the recovery of the Easter Vigil, and the use of the rich symbols in our liturgical life.

I am in absolute agreement with Louis Weil here. I am familiar with the “open table” of Jesus argument—that he ate with outcasts and sinners and never turned anyone away, etc. However, I am unpersuaded that this is the same thing as the Eucharist and would encourage congregations really to invite the poor into their homes and parish halls for meals rather than believe that they have actually exercized hospitality by inviting the unbaptized to communion.
View the original post

Certainly, it is an ecumenical nightmare. An Orthodox priest friend of mine wandered into an Episcopal Church inviting “all who are hungry for God” to receive the sacrament and later told me, “If you think Gene Robinson is a problem, that is nothing compared to this from our perspective!”

The ecumenical aspect helps put into focus the theological issues - open communion has the net effect of removing the Cross from the picture. We are baptized into Christ’s death. Communion is a foretaste of the feast of the Lamb, shared by those who the Lamb has redeemed by his blood. To welcome to *that* table any and all is to make a mockery of the necessity of the Cross.

This takes us back to the boundary discussion on a different thread. The Church must teach that there is a boundary around the Eucharistic table - a boundary that Jesus calls any and all to cross - but on Jesus’ terms.

Doug,
Thank you for posting this. You have blessed me.

Craig

I take arguments about hospitality seriously; the church, in my experience, is usually not that hospitable - indeed, we are cordial at best. However, genuine hospitality is something that is done face-to-face and person-to-person. It is done at the dinner table, and involves communication of a non-Eucharistic sort: the sort of conversation that is had on the way towards friendship. I fail to see why it is that participation in a ritual should be seen as act of hospitality. Ritual is profoundly powerful, of course, but I participate every Sunday with several hundred people in a ritual that takes us to the altar. Sadly, this doesn’t make people any more friendly at the coffee bar after the Divine Service. Politicizing the Eucharist and making it the site of theological revision seems to me to be a rather misplaced good intention. If anything, it is a cop-out from the real work of hospitality, which takes place in the more intimate space of the dinner table and, perhaps, the home. To make the Episcopal Church a church that invited others into the home would be truly radical, and truly like Christ. It would also mean something more risky on personal and emotional levels, threatening the self-congratulatory, bourgeois complacency that shouts out loudly about “justice” from little more than the comfort of the pew. If people want true hospitality, let them toil for it! Let them get their hands dirty by laughing, weeping, and truly reaching out! Do not let them turn the Eucharist into mass-sanctified food dealt out in the name of a hospitality that exists in nothing but name only!

- http://ecubishop.wordpress.com/2009/01/31/open-communion/#comment-7130

I wholeheartedly agree that Holy Eucharist should be reserved for Baptised Christians, but at the same time, agree with Dr. Weil’s thoughts on “playing God @ the altar rail”.

However, I always thought of the term “open Communion” as meaning Roman Catholic’s, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, etc. as being welcome to receive. I never stopped to consider that the term would also be used by those who think reception of the Holy Eucharist should be given to whoever wants it.

At my church, we have the following line printed in our Mass bulletin:
The Episcopal Church welcomes you at the Altar Rail as we do not deny the Eucharist to any Baptised Christian.

(I always thought that’s what “open Communion” meant.)

Nah, David, the open communion movement is not new, but a renewal of an old idea.  The idea is that the Eucharist is open to all persons even if they are not baptized.  But there are variances in this. For example, John Wesley communed people who were not yet baptized, though he only did that with the proviso that they get on track to be baptized immediately.  The view was / is that there is an evangelical utility that one saw in the frenzied open field preaching and subsequent sharing of the Lord’s Supper.  It obviously turns the idea of catechesis on its head.  And it turns the notion of the discipline of the Eucharist that we see in Paul on its head.  But when you live in an established church like CoE at that time, the notion of a Eucharistic community that was distinct from the world probably did not have a lot of purchase, since the world and church distinction had been erased.  And even though we live in a post-Christian period of U.S. history, the distinction is not much clearer here, and so many of us have forgotten the importance of maintaining that distinction so that the world can learn what it does not know about itself from the people called out to be Israel (John Howard Yoder).

It’s a big deal, I think. Worth fighting hard to teach people why open communion contradicts the meaning of being marked by the blood for a particular purpose.

Absolutely. It is very important to help people learn the reasons behind why communion is reserved for the Baptised.

I am familiar with the ideas behind the notion of giving the Eucharist to whoever wants it, but I have read none of these arguements that would merit the church changing how we look at it.

“Open Communion” of the variety my church practices (open to all Baptised Christians) is the norm (as I understand it), but even that has presented some concerns for me. For example, a Southern Baptist visits an Episcopal Church and receives the Eucharist: that person, while a Baptised Christian, certainly does not share our Eucharistic theology and would see the Sacrifice of the Altar as a rather empty “memorial dinner”; a sort of re-enactment of the Last Supper.

It seems to me that while Baptism should be a pre-requisite, that an understanding/belief of our basic Eucharistic theology should also be included in the equation somehow.  Of course, I have to remember that my ‘high church Anglo-Catholic’ understanding of the Holy Eucharist is not universally shared by TEC. Then again, the question “What IS the Holy Eucharist” runs deep in our Anglican DNA.

I agree with Ben above. The open invitation to the Eucharist in the name of hospitality, seems too often about a cheap and easy hospitality. Without a recognition that the Eucharist is a communal meal with communal expectations and responsibilities (which includes pracitices like deep hospitality toward one another) we are left to fend for ourselves on our individual spiritual journeys.

Given that the “hospitality” industry includes food service, I wonder if this does not turn the church into a sort of religious restaurant with godbread on the menu. Indviduals can come and go, but there is no real community and no real hospitality. It’s the same superficial hospitality one might experience at Appleby’s.

Hi,

Looks like I might be in the minority on this topic.  Although I will say that my mind is not completely made up.  I’m certainly persuadable.  So far, though, none of the arguments here are remotely close to persuading me.

Yes, I believe in fully open communion, i.e. that any who seek to draw close to God may come to the table.  I believe this because I believe it is what Christ taught and practiced.  He did not require baptism.  I find the most compelling argument to be the very first person to whom He gave the Eucharist…Judas Iscariot.  If Judas Iscariot can receive communion, it seems to me that anyone can receive communion.

As for it being an act of hospitality, it most certainly is.  If you have ever been to a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox service and not been able to receive communion, for me anyway, that is an act of great inhospitality.  I most definitely feel excluded from that group.  Now, does that mean we couldn’t do more to be hospitable?  Of course we can and we most certainly need to.  I am especially in favor of bridging the class divide that exists in most of our Episcopal churches….but I recognize that is about as much of a “pie-in-the-sky” proposal as the covenant process and Fthr. Humphrey’s ROOM proposal!  <very big grin>

Like I said, though, I’m quite persuadable.

In Christ,
Shawn

David Thomas - 24 February 2009 07:52 AM

Absolutely. It is very important to help people learn the reasons behind why communion is reserved for the Baptised.

I am familiar with the ideas behind the notion of giving the Eucharist to whoever wants it, but I have read none of these arguements that would merit the church changing how we look at it.

“Open Communion” of the variety my church practices (open to all Baptised Christians) is the norm (as I understand it), but even that has presented some concerns for me. For example, a Southern Baptist visits an Episcopal Church and receives the Eucharist: that person, while a Baptised Christian, certainly does not share our Eucharistic theology and would see the Sacrifice of the Altar as a rather empty “memorial dinner”; a sort of re-enactment of the Last Supper.

It seems to me that while Baptism should be a pre-requisite, that an understanding/belief of our basic Eucharistic theology should also be included in the equation somehow.  Of course, I have to remember that my ‘high church Anglo-Catholic’ understanding of the Holy Eucharist is not universally shared by TEC. Then again, the question “What IS the Holy Eucharist” runs deep in our Anglican DNA.

Hi David,

I’m glad that you recognize that many “low church” Episcopalians consider the Eucharist to be a memorial meal as well.  I happen to hold a “high” view of the Eucharist myself, but in so doing, I think that predicates that “understanding” or “belief” are not a part of the Mystery of the Eucharist.  I would be concerned that having such prerequisites would send us once again toward the trend of rationalism.  Can any of us claim to truly understand the Mystery of the Eucharist?

In Christ,
Shawn

Shawn,

As a matter of gospel and historical record, it is likely that Jesus’ disciples were either baptized by John or baptized (rebaptized?) upon joining the Jesus movement. Andrew was certainly a follower of John the Baptist (John 1:40). Jesus is recorded as baptizing (John 3:26), or at least having his disciples baptize (John 4:1). One can assume then that whether by John or after responding to Jesus’ call, they were baptized before the Last Supper. That would include Judas.

John’s baptism is arguably irrelevant to subsequent Christian practice and we see the early Church understanding it as inadequate (Acts 19:1-7). But, the evidence that Jesus – or at least his disciples – baptized those who wished to respond to his call remains. It suggests that Jesus was not bashful about making distinctions between those who were his followers and those who were not and publicly and ritually marking that distinction.

I’ve been to both RC and Orthodox Eucharists. I do not feel excluded because I recognize that I am not in comunion with them (much as I wish it was otherwise and regardless of whose fault I might think that is). I recognize that I am a guest and participate as a guest. I do go forward for a blessing and, in Orthodox Churches have gratefully received the Antidoran “instead of gift” bread (though I understand there is some question among Orthodox if this too should be reserved for other Orthodox.

I wonder if incorporating something akin to the Antidoron would address the sense that we are being inhospitable in reserving Eucharist for the baptized?

Matt -

YES!  I so want us to give something like the Antidoron!  We could simply say to people before Communion, “All who are baptized are welcome to receive the Eucharist at the Lord’s table.  All who are not baptized are also welcome at the Lord’s table.  We will give you unconsecrated bread and pray a blessing over you.”  The blessing could be something short, sweet, and Biblical: “May our Lord find you, here on your way.  May you see him here, in the breaking of this bread.”  And then, they would be given the unconsecrated bread.  It’s a perfect evangelistic opportunity, it doesn’t sacrifice the Church’s historic sacramental theology, and it doesn’t substitute ritual for the real work of genuine hospitality.

Hi Matt (or is it Fthr. Gunter?),

And perhaps offering the blessing as an alternative is enough as well.  Like I said, I am persuadable.  I consider myself to be a “friend of St. Paul’s” (K Street that is here in DC), and I hope to one day have a long conversation with Fthr. Sloane about his “Pilgrims in Christ” catechetical process.  I have only been able to glimpse it on the occasions when I have been a guest in their services.  I find it quite inspiring.

In a world of instant everything, there is something to be said about the process of taking a journey.  I hope this dialogue will continue.

Many thanks,
Shawn

My own views on this debate have been articulated in this post on my blog.  In short:  The Eucharist is the Family Meal and the desire for the Eucharist should be interpreted as a desire for full belonging.  The way to belong fully to the Church is by being baptized.  CWOB undercuts the Church’s evangelical mission to baptize and teach. 

If a desire to receive communion is not a desire for full belonging, then the person should question why one would want to partake of the Eucharist.  I rather suspect it is the desire of those who wish to be hospitable that is the real issue, and the challenge here is to articulate how CWOB could possibly be an effective and coherent evangelistic strategy, particularly since where implemented it would be difficult to tell who the unbaptized are and thus who might be an object of evangelistic attention.  We naturally assume that anyone who receives communion has already been initiated and has committed to lifelong Christian formation, don’t we?  (If not, we have some work to do!)

At the same time, I believe that those administering the Eucharist should never deny a person the Sacrament if s/he approaches of his or her own free will, even if that person is known to the one administering the Sacrament as an unbaptized person, because this is to place one in the seat of judgment and runs the risk of quenching the Spirit.  God can break the rules whenever God likes, and can move one to receive as a way of moving that person towards baptism.  At the earliest opportunity after the reception of communion, however, the unbaptized person should be invited to enter the catechumenate and fast from receiving our Lord’s Body & Blood until s/he has been fully initiated into the Family of God.

The only time the Sacrament should be denied is when a “notorious sinner” who, with the bishop’s (preferably advance) knowledge and consent, has been instructed not to receive comes forward in open defiance of church discipline.  I would define a notorious sinner as one whose actions are both a) commonly perceived as sinful within the local church and b) demonstrably and willfully divisive.  A person who is labeled by the church as a “sinner” but who has not willfully divided the church should not be kept from receiving the Sacrament, because then it’s just scapegoating masquerading as church discipline. In any event, before any such excommunication were pronounced, testimony should be received from two or three persons of unimpeachable integrity as to the damage that the person in question has already done that merits the excommunication, as well as the damage s/he would do should s/he be admitted to the Sacrament without repentance and amendment of life.  This would be the rarest of occurrences, I should hope!  And always, any excommunication is with an eye toward reconciliation and restoration; it should never be retributive.

Re:  Comment #4 above:

Intercommunion amongst the baptized of differing ecclesial traditions raises a separate set of questions.  You might be interested in the dialogue that this post on intercommunion sparked.