I was raised in the Presbyterian Church, and baptism alone wasn’t enough to get you to communion – you had to be confirmed, too. That made sense to me. To “commune” you must first become a member of the community. Membership is more meaningful if it reflects a conscious choice, and confirmation at the age of 12 or 13, after a year of classes, was my conscious choice. Baptism as an infant was not.
So my initial reaction to the posts objecting to communion without baptism was that they set the bar too low, not too high.
Still, I’ve learned not to trust my own opinions without testing them, so I asked the members of my two Education for Ministry groups what they thought, and I sent them links to Bryan Owen’s post, and the post excerpting James Farwell’s piece.
Only one of 20 members supported the position that baptism ought to be a prerequisite for receiving communion, but that one member made a powerful case.
It is called “communion” because it is supposed to represent not only communion with God—Christ’s mystical body—but with the church here on earth. Not enforcing canon law on this, at some point, might lead to the diminution of the sacraments being the central part of what TEC “does” for its members. Sacraments should be taken seriously in the church and by its constituent members who worship in it; don’t you think?
Yes, I think.
But others don’t. They recalled that Jesus wasn’t so particular about who he dined with. One said:
Didn’t Jesus share his meals – and even himself – with the unbaptized? I think we are called to do what he would have done.
Another expanded on the same point:
I appreciate the desire to be authentic to the church canon or to engage the world in a conversation about God’s work in it. There seems to be a desire to show the world how Christians are different by God’s action in the life of the church and the lives of the church’s members.
However, I can’t help but remember how Jesus, time and time again, included in his stories and in his company the very people on the outside, somehow left behind by the Pharisees, who were so concerned about following the laws of their faith.
In preparing for the seder for our EFM group a couple weeks ago [both our groups have celebrated a Passover seder], a co-worker told me about a tradition in her family of inviting a guest to their seder table. It was not necessary for the guest to be a Jew. The purpose of inviting the guest, if I recall correctly, was to share the tradition and experience of the story of how the Hebrews acquired freedom from slavery and the work of God in freeing them from bondage.
Would the Jewish people at the seder table refuse to share with the guest any portion of the seder plate? I asked a Jewish person that question, and the reply was “Certainly not!”
Perhaps we miss an opportunity to share Christ with those “on the outside” because we’ve missed the intention of the sharing at the table all along.
Another EFM member lamented, “Alas the debate of legalism versus grace continues.” And then he said:
For me to participate in the act of worship and Eucharist with my brothers and sisters, however, I do not need to be baptized. I should want baptism, but I should not be required to “have” it. . . . Both baptism and communion allow me to participate in God’s story and are outward indications of the ethical, moral and theological choices I have made to that end. Stated more purely, to live as a Christian is to choose to live in covenant—covenant with God, covenant with my neighbor, etc. Baptism and Eucharist are both elements and evidence of this relationship based in covenant. Can God reach me if I break this covenant or choose not to participate in this covenant? Of course, as is the beauty and profundity of God’s grace. The damaging aspect of this debate, however, is for someone to participate in the dialogue of Christianity feeling as if God’s grace cannot or does not extend to them. The argument in favor of requiring baptism before being admitted to the altar for communion is simply one I cannot reconcile with the nature and character of God. God’s grace does not require a hall pass or some sort of secret handshake. Jesus’ life, death and resurrection was for all, not just a select few (sorry Calvin).
One EFM member observed that infant baptism doesn’t meet the scriptural requirements for receiving the Eucharist, and another admitted, “I was baptized as an infant, but I’m not sure I believe what I’m supposed to believe when I take communion.” A third member queried, “Do you not have to first determine for yourself to some degree what the nature of both baptism and the Eucharist are before answering this question? That may be why it is difficult to answer and why there are good arguments on both sides of the equation.”
And the oldest and wisest of us told this story:
While I was recovering from my operation, I had an aide coming to help me. I discovered that she “is religious” when I identified the name of a hymn tune that she was singing. Two days later, she asked me, “Are you a Christian?”
“Yes.”
“Have you been baptized?
“Yes, of course”
“Did they push you down in the water?”
“No.”
“Well then, you aren’t a Christian.”
I quoted to her Jesus: “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am also.” Discussion over.
I find all these arguments, on both sides of the issue, very persuasive. They are made by people who take their religion seriously. With God’s help, they live the vows of their Baptismal Covenant daily.
And yet, in the end, I have to come down on the side of legalism. The Canons say what the Canons say. If it were up to me, they might say something different, but it’s not up to me. Perhaps some day my brothers and sisters in EFM who think the Canons are wrong will succeed in changing them, but until that happens, I think we have to adhere to the rules we have.
I cannot forget the words of St. Thomas More – actually, the words of Paul Schofield playing the role of Thomas More in A Man For All Seasons:
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
We’d do better in the Episcopal Church if we followed our Canons better, or tried to change them if we thought they were wrong, rather than looking for reasons not to follow them. Our Canons say that the provisions for admission of candidates for ordination “shall be equally applicable to men and women”, yet we have had whole dioceses in which women have been excluded from the priesthood. Our Canons say that no one shall be denied access to discernment for any ministry, lay or ordained, by reason of sexual orientation, yet we allow gays and lesbians to be treated as second class congregants throughout our church. Our Constitution provides in detail how our Church is governed, and it does not assign any say in our governance to any archbishop appointed by the Queen of England or the powers that be in any other foreign land. Yet we have been tying ourselves in knots for half a decade because we don’t want to give offense to the too-easily-offended.
I say, let’s follow our rules.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
There are many, many points on which to object to what these EfMers are saying in favor of Communion without Baptism (CWOB). But my intitial response is to find myself catching my breath at how quickly and easily they are willing to completely dismiss the faith, practice, and witness of the early Church - the same early Church, BTW, which gave us the scriptures and the sacraments in the first place, and which has, historically, been formative for Anglicanism generally and for the Episcopal Church in particular (note, for example, the rationale for many of the revisions in the 1979 BCP, including especially the rite for Holy Baptism).
How sad when we use what they gave us against them, as though we now know better than they did.
I don't mean to overpersonalize this, but I don't know how else to say it: this strikes me as a severe case of hubris.
The issue is NOT about choosing in favor of legalism versus grace. This IS about whether or not we are going to continue being faithful to our identity as Episcopalians (i.e., heirs of the catholic tradition). So it's not as simple as adhering to vs. breaking canons, as though everything would be okay if the canons said that the unbaptized may receive communion. At bottom, this is about what it means to be the Church, the Body of Christ. This is an ecclesiological issue first and foremost, and secondarily (at best) a matter of evangelism and welcoming.
If we take away Baptism as the sacramental foundation of the Church, then the Episcopal Church sells out to being just another lifestyle enclave among a plurality of competing options within a consumer culture.
Greg,
I've been following your posts on this question with some interest as I think that this, and not The Gay, is the most serious issue that our Church is currently wrestling with.
Theological issues aside (and on those, I second everything bryan+ said above), I just can't wrap my mind around the mentality behind CWOB. A propos your comment on giving offense to the too easily offended, if I were attending the worship services of a religion that I didn't belong to, and there were some act that I couldn't participate in because I didn't belong to the religion, I would understand completely. Similarly, what kind of people expect to be treated as a full member of the community from the moment they darken its doors and walk away in a huff when they aren't?
I think a lot of this debate has come to be because we've failed to sufficiently reflect as a community on the nature of inclusivity. Often, when the word is mentioned in relation to church matters, it's invoked as an end in itself, a puffy, sparkling cloud at whose mention all good people gasp in awe and reverence. As Christians, the basis for inclusivity is the very concrete act of Baptism, and indeed, the strongest arguments for the equal place of women and LGBT people in the life of the Church have been based on it. As a layperson, it is Baptism that makes me a member of a co-equal Estate of God's Realm along with deacons, priests, and bishops, and thus empowers me to participate in the governance of the Church. CWOB undermines the basis of our arguments for all the progress that our Church has made over the past 30 or 40 years and it sends out the logically untenable message that Baptism is both central and optional.
And just how inclusive is CWOB, anyway? There are so many things that canon law and the BCP require baptism for. An unbaptized person could receive the Eucharist at a given parish for years, yet he or she could not vote in parish elections or hold parish office because one has to be on the parish rolls to do so, and to be on the parish rolls, one has to be baptized. And let's say this person wants to get married to someone who is also unbaptized. That marriage could not take place in church because the BCP requires at least one of the parties to a marriage to be baptized. So, despite whatever feelings of warmth and self-satisfaction may ensue from communing an unbaptized person, we are ultimately offering that person a false sense of welcome.
On a personal note, I have to say that the thought that CWOB may one day be canonically permissible disturbs me deeply. If canon law were changed to allow it in any way, I wouldn't think that this Church has forfeited the right to call itself Christian, but I would cease to take it seriously as an expression of the catholic faith. I wouldn't join another Church, but I woud find other things to do with my time on Sunday morning.
Douglas Hayes
Something to ponder about...
"I am 14 years old and have been attending the Episcopal church in my town for the last couple of years with my friend. Each week, we meet at church, go to the service and then Sunday School. I have never been baptized and while my parents do not object that I go to church, they have no interest in getting me baptized. I've been taking communion and want to continue. Then, when I'm 18, I'll asked to be baptized."
Is it possible that, in offering Communion to the unbaptized, we are making a category mistake?
It seems to me that we baptized Christians are, ourselves, supposed to be the Body of Christ in and to the world, and to our unbaptized neighbors.
We need Communion. We need it for strenghth to go back out into the world and among our neighbors, and bring Christ to them, not in Communion, but in ourselves. Our unbaptized neighbors need - and deserve - not Communion, but us, living into our identity, filled with the Spirit, and strengthened by the Bread of Heaven and the Cup of Salvation.
I know I am not adequate to this task. Who could be? But that is what we are all called to do.
Now, I should add that I am glad that we do not quiz people kneeling at the altar rail; I know that there are instances where an unbaptized person, in recieving communion, does receive great grace from God; and I am sure that when an unbaptized person has - in good will or through ignorance - recieved communion, great pastoral sensitivity is required, coupled, if possible, with encouragement towards Baptism. (And even more sensitivity in the case of children, who will simply stretch out their hands in immitation of the adults around them.)
Allison,
I think that's a lovely way of putting it: the Eucharistic elements nourish the baptized to be the Body of Christ to the world.
Also, the last paragraph of your post got me thinking: my sense is that a lot of people think that those against CWOB are in favor of "carding" people at the altar or some such thing. In my opinion, there should be no stronger enforcement of the canon than the honor system.
As others have stated, I think the best that arguments for CWOB can support is a "don't ask/don't tell" approach. I was once encouraged by a bishop, "when in doubt, feed;" but the context was children being raised in the Church, greater likelihood that they had been baptized.
I fear, beyond a "when in doubt" situation, that if we do not continue to see formation, demonstrated and ending in baptism, as normative for participation in the life of the Church, we demonstrate most clearly that our is indeed (in the words of adolescents critiquing the Church in favor of some "newly discovered" faith) "a religion and not a lifestyle." Our society has largely vitiated any importance to rites of passage, and our people suffer issues of identity because of it. We might want to welcome and encourage "God-fearers;" for of such was the early Christian community formed. We can appreciate that our rite of passage is less difficult than circumcision. I don't think we do well to lose the normative expectation.
Which does raise another question: why would a self-respecting non-Christian want to receive communion, understood as we understand it? The few who would want to receive communion, understood as we understand it, and who might receive it before baptism, are not really an issue for me. They are in God's hands, and in God's formation until they are ready to come for baptism. At the same time, I can't see that we do well to change our invitation, or our understanding of how the Body is formed.
Bryan+
While I appreciate your defense of the faith, practice and witness of the early church, let's not forget what the early church also gave us: destruction, domination and the imperialism of the faith. Indeed the very beginnings of Anglicanism were rife with such behavior. Seems to me that those who espouse the Eucharist for even the unbaptized don't have the market cornered on hubris.
I think there are two issues at play here (among many others, no doubt): a) this really is an issue of law versus grace; and b) this is also an issue of considering onesself an inclusive or exclusive Christian.
As to the first point, we would all agree that the Eucharist, as defined by the early church and, by extension TEC, was/is a sacrament to be honored and observed in accordance with the guidelines given by Jesus at the Last Supper. Though this sacrament has largely been preserved in this manner, we should never discount the means of God's grace received at that moment--God's grace is for all, not just those who recite the right words (thanks truly be to God on this point). To celebrate the Eucharist (or "thanksgiving") together as Episcopaleans, we should be baptized. To allow our non-Episcopalean brothers and sisters to celebrate it with us is, too, directly in line with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
As to the second point, I think it is of primary importance that one who associates with a group of also-like-minded folks espouses to the guidelines and principles of such group. If this means that one "must" have been baptized before being allowed admission to the Eucharist rail, well then I have a problem with that and I think Jesus would, too. If, however, there is a community of faith that represents the embodiment of Christ so well so that this unbaptized participant wants to be baptized because there is an overwhelming sense of God's grace, mercy and redemption (again, as embodied by the group), then we're on to something and the "goal of the Gospels" is closer to being achieved.
To exclude someone from the Eucharist (and, thus, from God's grace and mercy) seems to me as anything but the nature and character of God. We should be forever changed by God's grace and mercy to the point that it so affects our relationships with one another that we, the church, as the Body of Christ, are defined by words like "welcome", "grace", "redemption", "peace", "reconciliation" and the like.
I dare say it like this: if we as TEC kept our focus on God's extension of grace to us, then our activity and behavior in relation to those outside of our cloister would look alot like our extending this grace to others--which certainly includes those in our midst. When we continue to believe that we have God's sole and exclusive election as to whom is to receive grace, then we are anything but his church.
Taken to its logical end, one could argue that is was canon and the law that crucified Jesus. We must make sure that our canon and adherence to "law" does not make martyrs out of would-be-communicants before they've even had a chance to approach the rail for a taste of God's great grace and mercy. Is the Eucharist a membership card to a certain belief system? If yes, then of course we should bear all marks required thereof. If, however, the Eucharist represents one method by which God extends grace and mercy to us, then we have but one response: gratitude and "thanksgiving."
Anyway, any and all people are asked to come forward for a blessing; we are not really being "exclusionary" at all.
But, we could offer blessed, not consecrated bread, if we wanted to offer something tangible to eat. I'd love that, myself.
(What I find really interesting, BTW, is that the whole argument these days about liturgy is that we ought to go "back to the early church" and reclaim the practices that were lost in later periods! But not this one, I guess....)
(I agree with The Godfather, though: let's follow the rules we ourselves have set, in any case. What's really happening is that priests are ignoring the laity; General Convention is the one place where laity have some say about what our church does. And GC is being ignored by the clergy at present.)
dr dobson,
You've touched on one of the big problems that I have with CWOB: the notion that, if one is not allowed to receive the Eucharist, it means that one is outside the love and mercy of God. Even I don't have that high a view of the Sacrament! Besides, it is simply not true. If one is not allowed to receive the Eucharist, it means that one is not a Christian; whether or not God loves someone is, of course, entirely up to him. As Allison said earlier, the Eucharist is meant to spritually nourish the baptized so that they, in turn, can be the Body of Christ to the rest of the world. And if someone does think that inability to receive the Eucharist is a sign of God's disfavor, then the solution is better theological education, not CWOB.
Also, I must object to the false dichotomies you set up between law and grace and inclusivity and exclusivity. Whenever someone uses the words "inclusive" and "exclusive", I'm always left asking, "Of what?". What one person sees as a basis for being included, another person will feel excluded by. Similarly, sometmes grace works through legal processes, as we're currently seeing in the reconstitution of the Diocese of San Joaquin.
If "law" or "rules" or "norms" are as strictly opposed to grace as some of these comments in favor of CWOB seem to suggest, then we are not only free to set aside baptism as the avenue of approach to the Eucharistic table; we are also free to set aside Jesus' teachings, example, and commandments when we deem doing so to be the "inclusive" thing to do. Indeed, we are free to set Jesus himself aside if being "inclusive" calls for it.
I am grateful for all the dialogue here. I disagree with my beloved Godfather that this is about legalism vs. grace - and that legalism should prevail. But, I am glad folks got to talk it over. Brother Doug Hayes has a sharp mind, and too sees that this is a watershed issue for the Episcopal Church going beyond issues around sexuality and identity.
Post a Comment