We were quite astounded the other day to come across Derek Olsen’s reflection on Communion without Baptism posted on the Daily Episcopalian blog, which is one of the blogs on the reappraising side of the Anglican/Episcopal spectrum. To our mind, Olsen makes one of the most eloquent and passionate defenses of requiring baptism before communion that we’ve yet seen. It is particularly interesting because Olsen obviously knows that many of his audience at Daily Episcopalian will strongly support Communion without baptism on the grounds of hospitality and inclusion. So he approaches his argument from that perspective. This elf really considers this blog entry MUST reading. Let us know if you agree.
Here’s an excerpt:
Coming from this perspective, Communion without Baptism misreads the logic of the liturgy. It demands intimacy without commitment, relationship without responsibility. To apply this same logic to another sphere of human relationship, this is the logic of the one night stand””the logic of the “meaningless” fling. Is this the relationship that we wish to have with the God who knows us each by name and who calls that name in the night, yearning for our return to the Triune embrace? But then again””who is this “we”? Exactly whose relationship are we talking about? Is this “we” the clergy, the members of the vestry, those who populate our pews day in and day out? Are those the ones invited to receive communion without baptism? No. The seekers, the strangers, the wanderers in our midst””they are the ones in view here. And here is my question; this is what we must answer to the satisfaction of our own consciences: Do we have the right to choose for the stranger and the seeker a relationship contradicting the logic of intimacy without offering them a yet more excellent way? Do we who make decisions for the church uphold our own baptismal commitment and covenant by offering the strangers and seekers less than what has been offered to and received by us?
The call of God is to all. God’s radical hospitality is for all. Truly Christ stretched out his arms of love on the hard wood of the cross that everyone might come within the reach of his saving embrace. Truly the Spirit moves over the waters of renewal and new life, beckoning and inviting. To the stranger, to the seeker, through our mouths we offer and issue God’s words of invitation: “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden”¦” inviting them through the waters of Baptism into the household of God. And in doing so we fulfill Christ’s commission to baptize those of all nations and teaching them his words and ways, the depths of his love, the depths of a life hid with Christ in God.
Note, this entry is part of a series by Daily Episcopalian on the topic of Communion without Baptism. An opposing perspective was posted here. Also, yesterday, Daily Episcopalian published an interview with leaders of St. Gregory of Nyssa in San Francisco, one of the Episcopal churches often considered to be in the forefront of the “Open Communion” or Communion without Baptism movement.
TEC follows the Canons when it wants and ignores them when it wants.
Wow! Quite a beautiful and profound essay.
I was very moved by the description / definition of true intimacy which Olsen offers:
[i]At the heart of intimacy is commitment. Nothing more—and nothing less. Intimacy is not instant; it grows over time. Intimacy is a process of growing into knowledge, love, and trust gradually—and its gradual nature demands that those growing remain committed to the process and to each other. It grows through hearing promises, then seeing those promises come true; through sharing truths, then recognizing and confirming those truths embodied in the patterns and rhythms of everyday life.[/i]
Beautifully written. And SO true. When I think of my most intimate friendships and relationships (and I am thinking here of emotional intimacy, not physical) I see exactly the importance of commitment, a trust built by honored promises, etc. Leaving the whole issue of CWOB aside for the moment, reading this paragraph has been helpful for me this morning as I’ve been frustrated at the *lack* of intimacy in several relationships of late. And this helps me understand why and what I can do to help strengthen trust and intimacy.
That personal tangent aside… back to the matter of CWOB.
This section is astonishing:
Coming from this perspective, Communion without Baptism misreads the logic of the liturgy. It demands intimacy without commitment, relationship without responsibility. To apply this same logic to another sphere of human relationship, this is the logic of the one night stand
CWOB as a one night stand. What a fantastic analogy!
And those are no mere words, because Olsen builds his case carefully in refuting a theology grounded in individual experience:
[i]Furthermore, this intimacy to which we are called is not just about individual gratification or knowledge. For as we are baptized, we are baptized into the whole company of faithful people, into the company of all those also joined to Christ[/i]
And it does seem to me that all the arguments FOR CWOB I have read in the past year do seem to center on individual experience and fulfillment. We must not risk offending the seeker or the visitor. We must cater to their emotional needs for acceptance, etc.
It’s not surprising that in a society as individualistic and consumer-oriented (driven by stirring up and fulfilling personal choices and desires) that CWOB would gain wide acceptance. And this essay beautifully shows why that is wrong. And not just “theologically” wrong. But ultimately UNLOVING, promoting a shallow substitute of me-centered fulfillment instead of the fullness of committed covenant relationship in Community that God wants to offer us through the Eucharist.
[i]In browsing Derek Olsen’s blog “haligweorc” ( which means sanctuary), we’ve come across several other entries by Derek to the Open Communion / Communion without Baptism debate that’s been taking place on several reappraising blogs of late. Here is a round of up links to these recent discussions. In another comment, we’ll see if we can find some links from previous T19 discussions of the same topic, just so we can work towards having a compilation of resources and links to arguments pro & con on this important subject:[/i]
[u]From Derek Olsen’s haligweorc:[/u]
[url=http://haligweorc.wordpress.com/2007/06/20/communion-without-baptism-discussion/]Communion Without Baptism Discussion[/url] (June 20, 2007)
— which was posted at Episcopal Cafe [url=http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/sacraments/by_derek_olsen_one_of.php]here[/url].
[url=http://haligweorc.wordpress.com/2007/06/22/the-cwob-position/]The CWOB Position[/url] June 22, 2007
[url=http://haligweorc.wordpress.com/2007/06/27/more-on-cwob/]More on CWOB[/url] June 27, 2007
[url=http://haligweorc.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/yet-more-on-cwob/]Yet More on CWOB[/url] June 29, 2007
and finally [url=http://haligweorc.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/cwob-at-the-episcopal-cafe/] CWOB at Episcopal Cafe[/url] which points to his essay we’ve posted above. (June 30, 2007)
To make it easy to see all of Derek Olsen’s commentary on this issue with one click, here is the link for his blog’s [url=http://haligweorc.wordpress.com/tag/spirituality/sacraments/]Sacraments Category[/url]
Ok, I’m going to make a real leap and show what a “true” traditionalist I am…I feel that in order for one to take communion, one should not only be baptized, but confirmed as well. Call me old-fashioned, but my first communion held a special meaning for me after going to all those confirmation classes and learning the catechism (out of the 1928 BCP, of course), back in the late 60’s. :cheese:
Other recent CWOB blog entries:
[u]– From the Topmost Apple blog[/u] (appears to be AGAINST CWOB)
[i]He offers a helpful roundup of some the recent discussions on various blogs. There have been WAY more recent posts on this than the elves realized![/i]
[url=http://topmostapple.blogspot.com/2007/06/cwob-my-likely-quite-unfortunate-take.html] CWOB: My (likely quite unfortunate) take[/url] (June 25, 2007)
Other relevant posts on CWOB by Topmost Apple can be found in his [url=http://topmostapple.blogspot.com/search/label/sacraments]sacraments category[/url] ([i]Ah we elves just love blog categories! They can be so helpful! 😉 )[/i]
————–
[u]– From Anglican Scotist (arguing [b]FOR[/b] CWOB)[/u]
[url=http://anglicanscotist.blogspot.com/2007/06/on-open-communion.html]June 12: On Open Communion[/url]
[url=http://anglicanscotist.blogspot.com/2007/06/dear-caelius-more-on-cwob.html]June 23: Dear Caelius: More On CWOB[/url]
[url=http://anglicanscotist.blogspot.com/2007/06/ps.html]June 23: P.S.: Some Quick Replies to Caelius[/url]
[url=http://anglicanscotist.blogspot.com/2007/06/communion-and-salvation.html]June 28: Communion & Salvation[/url]
[url=http://anglicanscotist.blogspot.com/2007/06/correction-in-my-case-for-cwob.html]June 29: A Correction in my case for CWOB[/url]
————-
[u]– From Questioning Christian (DC Toedt) arguing FOR CWOB[/u]
[url=http://www.questioningchristian.org/2007/06/communion-witho.html]Communion without baptism: Feed them all; God will know his own[/url] (June 24)
————
[u]From *Christopher at Betwixt and Between blog[/u] (AGAINST CWOB)
[url=http://zwischensein.blogspot.com/2007/06/cwob-communion-without-baptism.html] CWOB: Communion Without Baptism[/url] (June 28)
————-
[u]From Caelius at Monastery of the Remarkable English Martyrs blog:[/u] (AGAINST CWOB)
[url=http://auluslactinus.blogspot.com/search/label/CWOB]June 10: Communion Without Baptism (CWOB)[/url]
[url=http://auluslactinus.blogspot.com/2007/06/replying-to-scotist-on-cwob.html]June 14: Replying to the Scotist on CWOB[/url]
[url=http://auluslactinus.blogspot.com/2007/06/more-replies-to-scotist.html]June 28: More replies to the Scotist[/url]
Here’s Caelius’ [url=http://auluslactinus.blogspot.com/search/label/CWOB]CWOB category link[/url]
——–
[u]– Various entries from Episcopal Cafe / Daily Episcopalian not cited above:[/u]
[url=http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/faith/when_it_comes_to_hospitality_w.php]When it comes to hospitality, we lack practice[/url]
By Deirdre Good (GTS), June 27, 2007
[url=http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/sacraments/step_inside_st_gregory_of.php]Holy action, holy space[/url] (interview with leaders from St. Gregory of Nyssa parish, San Francisco) July 2, 2007
Here’s Daily Episcopalian’s [url=http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/sacraments/]Sacraments Category link[/url]
The same spirit that gives you Communion Without Baptism leads to priests who are Muslims.
When you get enough of those, you stop having communion at all.
The issue of “Communion without Baptism” (CWOB) or “Open Communion” as it had been mostly called in previous discussion (CWOB is a much better, more precise term I think), of course is not a new one. It has been a pretty frequent theme on Titusonenine in the past. Here are a bunch of links I found on the old blog on the topic.
[url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=1835]Al Kimel on Open Communion[/url] (July 2004)
[url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=2337]Open Communion Scrutinized in Northern California[/url] (Sept 2004)
[url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=2367]Open Communion at Saint Mark’s Saint Louis?[/url] (Sept 2004)
[url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=3960]Bishop William Wantland: A Warning Against Open Communion[/url] (Dec 2004)
[url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/index.php?p=6351]Kathryn Tanner–In Praise of Open Communion: A Rejoinder to James Farwell[/url] (April 2005)
[url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=6513]Ephraim Radner: On the Sorrow of Open Communion[/url] (May 2005)
[url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=10257]Communion with or without Baptism?[/url] (Dec 2005)
[i]Note includes link to Dio. Northern California task force report on this topic with various responses pro & con.[/i]
[url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=15631]Bishop Beisner: Dialogue Needed on Open Communion[/url] (Oct 2006)
I’m sure we’ve missed plenty of links. We’ll add more links from the old blog as we find them.
There is a separate issue which I should like to see discussed on this thread. Is Baptism a Sovereign Act of a Sovereign God which cannot be refused, cannot be lost, and guarantees Salvation? Is Baptism an action which does not require faith or acceptance? Does Baptism constitute election in the fullest sense of the term?
Some of the recent observations of PB Schori lead me to think that the theology ([i]sic[/i]) of TEc is headed in this direction.
The response of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Southern Florida to the Dar es Salaam communique also suggests this interpretation of Baptism.
Are we headed back to the theology of Augustine, where one waited for one’s deathbed for baptism?
The steady re-interpretation of the Sacrament of Baptism stands millenia of careful thought on its head!
Elves:
Thank you for this discussion. I have long considered this issue to be of primary importance-more than +VGR or anything else that presently afflicts us.
Randall
As I have posted often in the past, CWOB or open communion is flawed, not because it [i]limits[/i] the access of a seeker to God and God’s Table, but because it [i]cheapens[/i] the access to the Table for all believing Christians. The gift of a sovereign God is minimized by allowing anyone who walks in the front doors of our churches, to participate fully in the Mysteries of the Church, without ever being mentored by the Church. CWOB degrades the fullness of God’s gift and grace to us, as practicing Christians. If the benefits of His Passion are to be so freely attained, then why work to secure access to them? Why bother to learn of His mercy, His-story, His Grace and provision, if the ultimate benefits are so cheaply attained?
Communion following baptism only works, in my mind, as long as there has been a substantial catechesis prior to baptism. And I will go on to state that the catechesis should be a lengthy and heavily instructional and discipling effort, both on the part of the catechumen, and the mentor(s). This is the only way that communion access can be granted in the absence of a full catechesis for a confirmation rite, and we all know that confirmation, as a separate work, has been totally neutered by the General Convention and TEC theologians.
Yes, it means ‘regressing’ to the standards set by the early fathers of the faith, when Christians had to take a definite stand for their faith; but, as long as the Vigil is in the ‘Prayer Book’, then the [b]purpose [/b]of the Vigil should be upheld and not ignored, by glossing over the importance of full and complete discipleship training and re-training during Lent and culminating with the honoring of Christ and Baptism into the faith at the Vigil, signifying the death to the world, and new life in Him through faith.
The Mass was bought for us with a price, that bloody sacrifice that Christ paid on the Cross for our redemption so that we might be able to remember His work in our own ‘unbloody sacrifice’; and we must attend it with a price, the price of our efforts and labors to learn of Him, and pattern our lives after His, and take up our own crosses in order to follow Him. The Mass is the symbol of that journey, that intensive devotion, that willingness to follow…no matter what…into a taste of His Glory.
Gifts cheaply attained are gifts cheaply considered, and the gift of God must not be cheapened on such a manner, by cavalierly offering the Mass to anyone who walks in the door.
More links from the old blog:
[url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=2453]Disrespectful Practice[/url] (Sept 2004)
[url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=4284]Matthew Lawrence: “My bishop and I practice a quiet disobedience of this canon†[and practice open communion][/url] (Jan 2005)
[url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=19476][Here is an alternate link for this post][/url]
[url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=4357]Philip Turner: Ecusa’s God: A Descriptive Comment on the “Working Theology†of the Episcopal Church U.S.A.[/url] (Jan 2005)
[url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=4443]Father Richard Neuhaus on the Eucharist[/url] (Jan 2005)
[url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=10232]One Rector Writes His Parish about the ECUSA Crisis[/url] (Dec 2005)
[url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=12435]Christ Church Episcopal in Hudson New York Offers Open Baptism[/url] (April 2006)
[url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=13140]How the Early Church Worshipped[/url] (May 2006)
[url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=13564]Another Resolution to Keep an Eye on[/url] (June 2006)
[url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=13878]What Happened to the Resolution on the Communion of the Unbaptized[/url] (June 2006)
“Conservatives” in any parish/diocese where CWOB is practiced should flood the offices of their local rector, bishop, and PB with phone calls, e-mail and ‘snail mail’ letters insisting on the following of the Sacred Canons of the church in this regard, and ask for legal action where such following is refused (consistency, you know). It worked with congress, maybe it would work here.
Peace!
Jim Elliott
Jim:
I did what you suggested. I have been all but ostracized by my parish clergy as a result.
Randall
Correction…
My clergy and I have deep and abiding differences along the traditional high church/liberal low church fault line. To say they all trace to this issue is not fair to anyone. I did bring the issue up, however, and was promised discussion that never came. The consistency of canonical enforcement was dismissed on the spot.
Randall
#5, my mother saw it the very same way. Until I was confirmed in 1981, I was only allowed to cross my arms over my chest to receive a prayer. Only after confirmation could I receive communion.
It is a wonderfully effective argument, on the pro-CWOB own terms. Likewise, on the reappraisers’ own terms, the strongest argument against CWOB is that (drum roll) the Supreme Holy Canons explicitly constrain it. In my simplistic reading of the canons, this is the ONLY rule which has an overt theological purpose; take it away, and the remaining canons might as well describe the Mitre Appreciation Society or any other affinity group. This canon is part of what makes the organization a Church; or rather, it would if it were honored.
Elves: “It is particularly interesting because Olsen obviously knows that many of his audience at Daily Episcopalian will strongly support Communion without baptism on the grounds of hospitality and inclusion.”
I believe this is a false assumption and a red herring.
[i]And yet a few more links from the old T19 blog. I thought I’d included most of these in my previous comment above, but I was working from a WordPad file and accidentally copied and pasted only some of the links I’d intended to include. Note: We’ll put together a single compilation of all these links as a reference page. We’re also working on adding some of the earlier entries here to the Eucharist Category on the old blog. (Kendall didn’t categorize posts for about the first 18-20 months. Categorizing began in earnest in Oct 2005.)[/i]
——–
[url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=2044]Saint Christopher’s by the Sea: Opening Doors, Open Communion, Open Baptism, Open Mind?[/url] (Aug 2004)
[url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=6772]Philip Turner: An Unworkable Theology[/url] (May 2005)
[url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=9609]Notable and Quotable [Christianity Today Editorial, David Neff][/url] (Oct 2005)
[url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=17311]Notable and Quotable [UMC statement on participation in the Sacraments][/url] (Jan 2007)
[url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=17604]Dan Martins on The Communion of the Unbaptized[/url] (Feb 2007)
Padre Wayne (#18)
Please elaborate on your comment. What exactly is a “false assumption” or a “red herring”? Do you deny that many reappraisers promote CWOB on the basis of “radical hospitality” (Christ welcomed ALL to His table!)
1. I’ve talked with people, including an ECUSA rector with whom I am close friends, who have made promoted this exact argument.
2. I’ve just finished linking something like 50 blog entries on this topic (representing both sides of the debate). If you need me to cite chapter and verse, I can and will.
I mean just look at one of the blog entries on Daily Episcopalian which is part of their current series which includes the post above.
[url=http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/faith/when_it_comes_to_hospitality_w.php]When it comes to hospitality, we lack practice[/url] by Deirdre Good, a professor of NT at General Theological Seminary.
[blockquote]If we reduce hospitality to an arbitration of who is and who is not welcomed by us as hosts into our homes, and under what conditions, is this not a diminution of God’s hospitality to the point of distortion?
I believe this is also true of debates about conditions and circumstances under which people may approach the communion table. If we enter into such debates, we have already decided that there is such a debate about who is welcome and who is not. I myself believe that on this question, the evidence of the gospels is univocal: Jesus practiced open table fellowship with respect to God’s hospitality. It wasn’t his table. He was received as a stranger, welcomed as a guest, and gave hospitality at the tables of strangers or acquaintances. Sometimes he learnt from others about brokering God’s limitless inclusion. [/blockquote]
Read that two or three times. Where am I making a false assumption or promoting a red herring? Open Communion (CWOB) is promoted on the basis of the demands of hospitality and inclusion. It is there in black and white. As clear as clear can be. I’m not trying to twist anyone’s words. It is the reappraisers’ own clearly acknowledged argument.
That is why I find Derek Olsen’s piece so helpful and powerful. He addresses the hospitality and inclusion arguments on their own terms, and to my mind clearly shows how CWOB is actually failing to be loving and hospitable because it is not offering seekers God’s best.
Olsen’s essay is a good explication of what the 28 BCP required of a person prior to receiving the Holy Communion if not already Confirmed: “ready and desirous.” At that point in our history, Confirmation was the viewed as the completion of Baptism.
I believe that the issue will come down to what we believe when we look at the prayer book term “ready and desirous to receive the same.” I do not believe that the uninformed and the unconverted adult can be “ready and desirous.”
There is an old book by Gert Behena, “The Late Liz,” that describes how an affluent rootless alcoholic met our Lord Jesus Christ in the midst of her last suicide attempt. As I remember, while in the hospital she talked with a friend that came to visit her. Describing what she experienced, her friend affirmed her encounter.
That friend invited her to come to worship with her where she found herself in the worship of the Holy Trinity using the ’29 BCP in a church named Calvary. Drawn to the living Christ, truly repent of her former life, seeking only the God who revealed Himself in the dark night of her anguished soul and was here in the midst of their worship, she came forward and extended her hand.
Thank you Sam Shoemaker+ for seeing the transformed babe in Christ before you and communing Gert.
That really qualifies.
At Requiem Funerals and Nuptial Eucharists I carefully explain in the bulletin and by voice both the sincere invitation and the requirements for receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
In my opinion, a non-believer cannot be both “ready and desirous.”
Elves #20, we see comments such as Padre Wayne’s again and again. The party line is, reappraisers are just as orthodox as everybody else. So, when somebody surfaces examples where they’re shown to be no such thing, the faux outrage begins to flow like water. Pay it no never mind.
Elves #19, Good grief, I hardly expected such a response! While the “inviting, inclusive, open” argument is indeed used by some “reappraisers” to justify CWOB, and while a number of the blogs you cite do just that, I could also give you a list of oh, perhaps twenty “reappraiser” priests who, like me, are still either a) Holding to the canonical requirement because it is canon, or b) Open to prayerful reflection while not yet ready to make the move toward CWOB (or proposing it to our bishops).
Phil #22, I was not expressing outrage. Faux or otherwise. Grow up.
Padre:
You make a fair point and are entirely correct. And please know I greatly appreciate the thought and restraint that you and others in your situation have exercised in this matter.
Randall
PadreWayne: Have you ever visited the liberal western dioceses of TEC? I heard that at a recent clergy convention in a western diocese, the speaker assumed that he was on supportive territory and that everyone with a brain would be in favor of CWOB. He spoke derisively against opponents of CWOB as being unwelcoming and uninclusive. The bishop later had to apologize to CWOB opponents amongst the clergy who made complaints.
The points made by “The Elves” are exactly what I hear repeated over and over by liberal priests in our diocese. No red herrings or false assumptions there.
#20: Chris did not welcome all to His table. If that had been His intention, the Last Supper would have been in the Elks Hall. Gallons of wine and endless loaves of foccaccia. No, in fact, He only had the chosen around him and to them alone He spoke.
When are we going to let the notion setle in that inclusiveness is only another word for the absence of standards; it’s what you do when you don’t have to believe anything. This is equally true of “tolerance.” To be perfectly tolerant, you cannot believe in anything, so that all distinctions are of equal worth, and so of no worth. Inclusion is he Coward’s Mantra, the posture of those who are afraid to declare as a rule the Kantian proposition: When I make a judgment, I make it for all men, not just for myself. And to make judgment, is to exclude all those who do not agree. To go to communion without baptism is like going to the community pool without first taking a bath. Communion ought not to be a case of allowing one man to come clean by sharing his dirt equally. LM
Hey, Padre Wayne, how about giving us a list of twenty reappraiser priests who are opposed to CWOB because it’s wrong, not because the canons compel their behavior?
Padre, #23. Thank you for your clarification. Obviously we’ve got a problem of “missing tone” due to the difficulty of communicating by comment thread. You never meant to imply that NO reappraisers cite hospitality and inclusion as grounds for CWOB.
I never meant to imply that ALL reappraisers, progressives or moderates (pick your favorite label!) either accept CWOB or do so on the grounds of hospitality and inclusion.
It seems we were talking past one another just a bit.
Obviously neither of us can or should argue from particular to universal. i.e. your personal beliefs can not and do not represent all progressives. Nor am I trying to claim that Deirdre Good or anyone else speaks for all progressives or even all who support CWOB.
Yet, from my extensive reading of this and other blogs and websites and theological essays over the past 3 years, I honestly don’t know of any OTHER argument (besides hospitality / inclusion) that is seriously being used to support CWOB. A serious question: What other argument would there be?
And while I was not trying to make a universal statement about ALL progressives or reappraisers, I fear the evidence very very strongly suggests this is not a fringe belief held by just a few of the most extreme progressives.
I refer you to the report from the Northern California task force (2 years ago, under +Jerry Lamb) as MUST READING on this matter. Here are the specific links:
1) T19 post on Task Force report:
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=10257
2) the 10 page summary report of the task force
http://www.dncweb.org/communion/OpenCommunionReport2.pdf
3) The list of appendices with all the individual essays / reflections pro & con CWOB produced by the various task force members. These run the gamut from reviews of the Church’s tradition and writings of the Fathers, to personal devotional reflections about hospitality.
http://www.dncweb.org/communion/communion.htm
Among those who promote CWOB is there any other argument besides “table fellowship,” “hospitality” and “inclusion?” — I can’t find any.
4) Perhaps MOST important for my case about the prevalence of this practice. A table with results of a nationwide survey sent out by the Northern California task force to every ECUSA diocese. 47% of the ECUSA domestic dioceses responded. (48 of 103)
http://www.dncweb.org/communion/communion_by_province_data.pdf
Check out this table. It is organized by Province.
50% of the responding dioceses admitted they have parishes who practice Open Communion (CWOB) (24 dioceses out of 48 respondents). Therefore even if every NON responding diocese in ECUSA did not allow CWOB, we’re still talking about 1/4 of all dioceses permitting it back in 2004-2005 when this survey was done.
Another 7 dioceses gave unclear or coy responses that the task force interpreted to mean YES CWOB was allowed in that diocese (the report explains how they determined this), so the task force determined that 31 of the 48 responding dioceses (65% of respondents) in fact allowed CWOB. So, we’re now up to a minimum of about 33% of dioceses allowing the practice. Something that is a clear admitted canonical violation.
So, do you still want to tell me I’m just talking about a few people’s opinions here?
I think the table from Northern California is EXCEEDINGLY important. Most readers may not have seen it. We’ll try to post it as a top level entry if we can get it uploaded. Stay tuned.
Note the tactic: deny that something contrary to canon is being done or if it is, it’s only a small group, and then seek to normalize what is being done when a critical mass is reached. In the meantime never bring any discipline against violators.
Exactly right, Br, Michael, which is why we need to bring the heat as soon as the jackhammer is turned on and before the Left applies it to some new part of the Church’s foundation.
Phil, we can expose it and pint out the hypocracy of selective enforcement of Canons, but nothing, I repeat nothing, is going to stop these people. They control the machinery and will not and cannot be stopped.
I am quite solidly what you would call a “reappraiser” but I have deep reservations about CWOB. I think you will find that this is a matter where the break does not follow the usual pattern. What I would really like to see is more real theological discussion about this issue and not a lot of blanket condemnations and comments about how TEC is going to hell in a handbasket, or about how canons are enforced selectively. The conversation at Derek’s blog and other places I think illustrates that there is a deep desire to wrestle with this issue. Nor do I think hospitality, radical or otherwise, is the only point to consider.
32, the selective enforcement of Canons is a big issue for the persecuted orthodox. Why should we assume that this matter will not be settled the same way as WO and GLBT?
Thanks Rev Dr. Mom (#32). Glad to have you join the discussion.
The difference in tone here and at Derek’s blog, etc. may be due to the fact that many here have been discussing this for 3 years as the 22 links we’ve posted above from Kendall’s old blog attest. Many of those discussions were much more substantive.
But basically for most people here, it is a pretty cut and dry issue, as perhaps comment #3 well illustrates. It’s just not something most commenters here consider should be up for debate. Thus you’re not likely to get people having the same kind of nuanced conversations as among a group of blog commenters where the majority promote CWOB or are open to it.
But yes, we’re always eager to encourage reasoned debate as opposed to knee-jerk reactions.
#28 the Elves (or maybe just the one Elf) say:
I tend to be in favor of allowing “CWOB,” but I can see that there are strong arguments on the other side. It’s also true that most of us who are in favor of it tend to come from at it from the hospitality angle. (Although, speaking just for myself, I would happily support a moratorium on the use of the word “radical” as a modifier on “hospitality.”)
But in answer to your question, “What other argument could there be?” I think that others could be advanced. A lot of it, of course, depends on what you think the Eucharist is, and what it does. Is it a memorial? Is it the “Real Presence”?
I would say that if the Eucharist is truly the Body and the Blood of Christ, then it is bound to work good upon those who receive it — even if they don’t understand it (but who among us does, really?), even if they don’t believe in it, even if they have not been bound to the Church by water and the Spirit. Let them come and be fed; let God work upon them what He will through the body of His Son.
Derek Olsen’s reflection is eloquent, and I appreciate his application of intimacy and commitment; but I’m not sure that a “one-night stand” is what is going on when an unbaptised person receives the Eucharist. Because there is intimacy of one kind expressed between the baptized believer and God during Communion, does not mean that there cannot be another kind of intimacy — less profound, perhaps, or perhaps just differently profound — between God and the unbaptized at the same rail. Maybe rather than a one-night stand, it would be better to think of an unexpected warm embrace from a stranger when one is cold and lonely?
I can’t speak for all reappraisers, but I think for some of us, at least, the argument in the end comes down to this: inviting the unbaptized to the table at least does no harm, to them or to us, and it might do some good. So why should they be kept away?
(I also find it somewhat ironic that previous versions of the prayer book included lengthy exhortations for the purpose of pleading with the baptized to please come to Communion at least occasionally; and now we’re arguing over keeping the unbaptized away.)
Now, on the other side, I will say this: when people blithely disregard the canon against communion of the unbaptized on one hand, and on the other hand demand strict by-the-letter compliance with canons about property or elections, then that is indeed pretty damned hypocritical. I can’t support that. Either position — “The canons are guidelines, but can be flexed or disregarded when matters of principal or common sense demand it” or “The canons are the rules, if you don’t like them then either change them by due process or found your own church” — could be defended, but you gotta pick one and stick by it across the board.
Helpful comment Ross. Thanks. Let me clarify for the record, there is just only one elf on the blog this week, elfgirl. My elfin colleague elf-lady is slacking off on vacation somewhere. Harrumph! 😉
I should try to remember to sign my comments.
Ross, the one thing I would want to take exception to in your comment is the “do no harm” line. As [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/4150/#75770]another commenter[/url] noted in the later CWOB discussion above, anyone promoting CWOB of the unbaptized has to fight against 1 Cor 11:29
29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.
It’s a very sobering passage, and I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a supporter of CWOB provide any exegesis that deals with this passage. Rather it is ignored.
Padre, Dr. Mom, and Ross:
I think you make your points well. Taking off on what the Elf said, coming from my own experience:
My parish used to be high church (not anglo catholic, though). Indeed, an associate of Kendall’s now in DioceseSC was our Rector in the 80’s and early 90’s.
When CWOB was introduced, it was done clandestinely. First, the BCP rubric disappeared from our bullitens and nothing was said about qualifications for Communion. I never noticed. Other theological/liturgical changes were made, like omission of the General Confession from Christmas Eve to Epiphany, Easter to Trinity, and whenever else it was “accidentally” left out. Other Rite I elements that are “optional” were removed. I politely brought the latter issues to Rector, but little was settled.
It was sometime later that Communion was offered “wherever you are on your spiritual journey.” I was deeply disturbed. I wrote a lengthy letter to our Rector. I took the issue up with the Bishop without bringing the issue in relationship to my parish directly. In the case of the latter, nothing was said, and I can only assume our Bishops approve since they have celebrated the Eucharist at my parish since.
Understand I was careful in this process to go at this very academically. I quoted the Canons and Hooker’s Laws (which address the issue in Book V), cited the danger of “cheap grace”, and offered up some good ACI-style eccesiology (e.g., the WHOLE CHURCH needs to talk about this and not act unilaterally.) I even enclosed Ephraim Radner’s commentary on the subject.
The Rector first tried to deny that anything had changed. When I produced bullitens from before his tenure to track the change, I was told that not all of the canons applied equally. He then suggested that if he followed that, then we should get rid of Choral Services because it denied participation of the people as specified in the 1979 BCP. (A bunch of hooey if I ever heard any!) Finally, I got an excuse that, paraphrased, amounted to “everybody’s doing it.”
I gave up.
And I am really very angry. The body of Christ has been rent, before my very eyes, without so much as a parish discussion.
Maybe this will help:
[b]XVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.[/b]
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions .
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.
[b]XXIX. Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper.[/b]
The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they docarnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.
Page 874
[b]XXX. Of both Kinds.[/b]
The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord’s Sacrament, by Christ’s ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.
My own comment on the subject of this blog is the following order: Belief/Baptism/Communion. I have always challenged infant baptism I prefer infant consecration and the parents (and Godparents then have the job of leading their children in the Way until they day comes they 1)confess their belief in the saving power of Jesus Redemption 2) desiring baptism – giving evidence of belief and 3) joining with other believers in Comunnion with our Lord.
#36 Elfgirl:
I think Paul was feeling particularly cranky that day.
(As an aside, I also have to note that 1 Corinthians 11 has one of my favorite of Paul’s prohibitions, in verse 14: “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him[?]” As you may have noticed, I have a bit of a problem with that one 🙂 )
But let’s look at the passage cited, 1 Corinthians 11:27-32.
At this point, the Church has been administering Communion for nigh on two thousand years; and human nature being what it is, an awful lot of those who have received over the years must have come to the rail in an “unworthy manner.” If doing so reliably made one sick or dead, as Paul claims, then that could not possibly have gone unnoticed. Instead, it is apparent that even “notorious sinners,” as the rubric has it, may receive the elements and walk away from the rail in bonny health, off to a hard day of exploiting widows and orphans.
In short, at least so far as receiving Communion unworthily being physically bad for you — which is clearly one of the things he is asserting — Paul is demonstrably wrong.
Now, this leaves open the question of whether receiving Communion “unworthily” — or “without discerning the body” — may be spiritually bad for you, which is more difficult to track epidemiologically. It also seems clear that the immediate context for Paul’s admonition is baptized Christians who are not in a state of love and charity with one another while receiving; he’s not addressing whether the unbaptized may take Communion, because that’s not the issue at hand in Corinth. The passage may apply to the latter case, but you have to connect the dots to show that it does.
What Paul appears to be saying is that if one receives the Eucharist without having first judged oneself as strictly as possible — and confessed and repented of, and made amends for, any outstanding sins — then God will judge you instead. How does this apply to the unbaptized? One might take the tack that the unbaptized are, theoretically, uncatechized as well, and so do not know that they are supposed to so confess and repent. But that is precisely what the liturgy is supposed to teach and guide you through — assuming that the hypothetical unbaptized person did not wander into the church in the middle of the service. You confess your sins, you are absolved, and you make peace with the members of the congregation, all before you go to the rail — and the unbaptized would, presumably, do likewise.
Alternatively, you could take the approach that the unbaptized are unable to truly repent their sins or be absolved, stained as they still are with original sin, and therefore necessarily approach the rail unworthily. That’s not a view of baptism I’m personally comfortable with, but if someone wants to take this position and present an argument for it I’ll do my best to counter it.
Yet again, you could focus on the phrase “without discerning the body.” If that means “without propertly understanding the presence of Christ in the elements,” then what you have is an argument for forbidding Communion to the uncatechized, not the unbaptized. But I’m not convinced that’s what it means in the first place.
Another approach — which is not suggested by Paul, at least not here — which one might take is that the Body and Blood are too “strong” for the unbaptized… that their potency is harmful unless your system is braced for it by the grace of baptism. I’m reminded here of C. S. Lewis’ Voyage of the Dawn Treader, and the seawater as they approached the edge of the world. I can’t recall ever hearing someone make this argument for restricting Communion to the baptized, which surprises me a bit because it’s one I would probably try to make if I were on that side 🙂 But since I’m on this side, I’ll counter myself by saying that after having seen many of the unbaptized receive Communion, I haven’t seen anything to suggest that this is in fact the case.
(A contentious person might expand this argument by quoting 2 Samuel 6:6-7 as an example of God striking down a perfectly innocent person just for touching something that was too holy; and then the discussion could wander to include Rudolf Otto on what holiness is anyway and perhaps even loop in Isaiah 6:1-6, which seems notionally, if tangentially, related, and it might turn out to be a rather interesting conversation. But I digress.)
Anyway, that’s how I would address 1 Corinthians 11 in this context. Your thoughts?
#38 libraryjim quotes the Articles thusly:
So much for Anglo-Catholicism, then?
I’ve never been in an Anglo-Catholic (Anglican) parish where they reserved the host in a monstrance for public prostration and worship.
Ross judges Paul and says that Paul is wrong. Let Ross make up his own religion.
Ross:
“In short, at least so far as receiving Communion unworthily being physically bad for you—which is clearly one of the things he is asserting—Paul is demonstrably wrong.”
Really? Are you sure? Were you there? I think discounting what Paul seemed to think in the NT may be going a little far, even if the sinner with a mote in his eye got away from the rail in good health last weekend.
“But that is precisely what the liturgy is supposed to teach and guide you through—assuming that the hypothetical unbaptized person did not wander into the church in the middle of the service.”
Well, as I said earlier, such is not always the case in a post-1979 world! And even then, shouldn’t some real detailed catechism be involved? Otherwise, we’re just Baptists or worse. Something I know about, by the way…
“Alternatively, you could take the approach that the unbaptized are unable to truly repent their sins or be absolved, stained as they still are with original sin, and therefore necessarily approach the rail unworthily. That’s not a view of baptism I’m personally comfortable with, but if someone wants to take this position and present an argument for it I’ll do my best to counter it.”
Just for the sake of discussion, I’ll bite. At least insofar as that I do think that Baptism is a mark of initiation not wholly completed until confirmation.
By the way, I think the arguments you lean towards in favor of my position are pretty good. Thanks! Seriously.
“So much for Anglo-Catholicism, then?”
You raise a good point about the 39 Articles, although I haven’t mentioned them myself. I have seen this done; it depends on the parish. This is one of the reasons I use the High Church label for myself, as I don’t necessarily need this element of ceremony.
Randall
WE have to remember, too, that when Elizabeth I set up the mechanics of the Anglican Church, she was trying to make sure that both the Puritans and the Anglo-Catholics felt they had received a substantial victory in the formation of the Prayer Book liturgies. THIS was the via media, that the Puritans had much of the Roman popery thrown out (purgatory, Transubstantiation) and the Anglo-Catholics had the form of the Mass AND the sacramental theology retained.
What Ross is picking up on is the form and style of the consecration in the service. What we are presenting is the substance of theology of [i]The Real Presence in the Eucharist[/i] as opposed to a mere memorial service underlying the form and style.
I think. :coolsmile:
I don’t know why I keep capitalizing both letters in a two letter opening such as the “WE” above. It may be I have a heavy pinky on the shift key and don’t release it in time for the second letter.
My apologies.
Peace
Jim Elliott
Another blogger, the Anglican Centrist has chimed in with his thoughts on CWOB:
http://anglicancentrist.blogspot.com/2007/07/communion-after-baptism.html