James Farwell on Communing the Unbaptized

James Farwell is a scholar in liturgical theology, formerly of General Theological Seminary. His book, This is the Night: Suffering, Salvation and the Liturgies of Holy Week was published in 2005, and is quite good. He argues that human suffering is the primary locus of God's showing up and doing saving work. He wrote a good piece a couple years back supporting the Episcopal Church's canonical limitation of receiving holy eucharist to the baptized. Many in recent times have chosen to violate the canons of the church in this regard, and often flagrantly and without any sense of that being any issue at all. Some do so well aware of the violation, but believing that their own theological stance on the question justifies the violation. I argue, with many, that there are two problems here. One is the cavalier attitude toward the constitution and canons of the Church, which as a priest I am sworn to abide by. The second, and even deeper one, is that the theological rationale behind the canon is by far stronger than the rationale for violating the canon. This is no issue easily dismissed as one between 'liberals' or 'conservatives.'

Anyway, here are excerpts from Dr. Farwell's fine piece --

At its best, [the practice of communing the unbaptized] may involve under the appearance of hospitality a kind of laissez-faire, liberal Constantinianism, a notion that there is no boundary between the church and the world and so the table belongs to all.

At its worst, it may fail to respect genuine differences in spirituality and human experience, assuming that all who desire communion are moved by God as Christians understand God, or desire participation in the redeemed world as Christians experience it.

On first glance the assumption that anyone who desires communion is moved by the Spirit seems encouraged by the view of divine existence in the first commandment and by belief in the universal soteriological significance of Jesus Christ. Yet, partners in interreligious dialogues have learned hard lessons in recent years about the Christian and mainly Western assumption that all religious practices are different manifestations of a common, universal core.

Those lessons may be relevant here. This discovery of genuine and fundamental differences among formal religions-among the "salvations" for which they long and among the values to which they commit-are arguably indicative of wider human experience as well.

With this understanding, true hospitality reflects an attentive appreciation of genuine difference in human experience and a corresponding respect for boundaries. In such a world, it is hospitable to acquaint oneself with the longing of another and her understanding of God, share with respect one’s own, and in the process come to discover together whether the Christian life resonates with the content of her longing. This may be a more genuine hospitality than assuming anyone moved to receive communion is de facto moved by or desires the divine as understood by Christians.

Encouraging participation in Christian eucharist without this respect for spiritual differences may actually be disingenuous. Before we even begin to contemplate the canonical acceptance of open communion, far more reflection is required on the relationship between the claim to Christ's universal soteriological significance and the formal differences in experience and motivation for communion in those who have not yet undertaken the baptismal life. A functional and effective sense of mission in a pluralistic context may depend upon it, and the implicit Constantinian missiology of open communion has yet to offer an adequate account oi the relationship between world and church.

...One wonders whether the practice of open communion is not an easy substitute for genuine evangelism. Does our announcement that "all are welcome at the table" substitute for compelling witness and the seriousness of formation demanded by the catechumenate? Congratulating ourselves for our eucharistic hospitality to those who manage to find their way through our doors is much easier than being a visible church engaged in public discourse, cogently challenging the prevailing modem assumptions that the world’s salvation is found in technical mastery, the worship of "progress," or the palliatives of generic spirituality. Open communion may offer some "welcome" to those who enter the nave; humble but vigorous public engagement with the world may persuade the unconvinced that God s work in the world is actually worth the commitment that eucharist enacts.