The question of whether Communion without Baptism (CWOB, sometimes also called “Open Communion”) is actually widespread within ECUSA has come up in the discussion of Derek Olsen’s essay on CWOB which we posted this morning. Thanks to the work of a task force in the diocese of Northern California under Bp. Jerry Lamb in 2004 – 2005, we actually have some specific data to discuss on this question.
Survey data about the prevalence of Communion without Baptism
among domestic ECUSA dioceses, by Province
Here’s is an Excel version of the table above: CWOB_data_NCal_Survey2.xls which you can view onscreen or save to disk. (There are HTML links in this spreadsheet to the full survey report which provides important background). The original PDF version of this table is here. In the Excel version, we have slightly modified the PDF original to include a TOTAL column, and we have added separate “bottom line” totals separating out the YES responses from the “YES + Probable” responses, which we believe makes the data clearer. Otherwise the data is as reported.
Note that the first set of bottom-line percentages (tan color) represent the % practicing CWOB among responding dioceses in each Province. They cannot be assumed to be representative of other dioceses that did not respond. The final line of data (green) do give an idea of at least the MINIMUM number of dioceses per province practicing CWOB.
Summary of results:
— 48 dioceses (47%) responded.
— 24 (50%) reported that they have parishes in their dioceses who practice CWOB
— another 7 dioceses were considered to “probably allow CWOB,” bringing the total of “YES + Probable” responses 31 dioceses, or 65% (i.e. just about 2/3rds of all the dioceses which responded)
Even if the other 55 dioceses which did not respond did not allow CWOB (not likely!) that would mean a minimum of 23 – 30% of ECUSA dioceses allowed CWOB back in 2004 – 2005. If on the other hand the dioceses which responded are representative of ECUSA dioceses, than we can report that half to two-thirds of ECUSA dioceses allow CWOB.
As we wrote to one commenter in the discussion thread below: We’re really NOT talking about just a few extremists who advocate this practice!
This elf encourages all T19 readers to browse through the Northern California task force report and its appendices (click on individuals’ names) to better understand this survey and its results.
======
Important Update, October 2008:
In trying to access the Northern California Task Force materials linked here, we discovered that the original links are no longer working. However, all the documents can be found at the Internet Archive site:
[url=http://web.archive.org/web/20060517212454/http://www.dncweb.org/communion/OpenCommunionReport2.pdf]Here’s the Task Force Report[/url]
[url=http://web.archive.org/web/20061019104149/http://www.dncweb.org/communion/communion.htm]Here is the link to the Appendices and other supplemental material[/url]
[url=http://web.archive.org/web/20061028034407/www.dncweb.org/communion/communion_by_province_data.pdf]Here is the table from the original report, which we used to prepare our Excel spreadsheet and table.[/url]
Don’t hesitate to contact us should you need help finding and accessing this material. — The t19elves. (T19elves@yahoo.com)
Well, if nothing happens to the bread and wine (as VAST numbers of ECUSA’ans think), what’s the problem? By the way, if nothing happens, why can’t anybody just *not* do it themselves? Is there some special reason they have to pay someone to dress in a bad looking bathrobe to *not* do something to the bread and wine? Isn’t there a football game or something on?
As one who lives where statistical reports are read all the time, I have difficulties with what is reported here. (Note that I am not suggesting that the reporting is inaccurate or biased. My concern is with the original process.) The percentages reported are the precentages of respondent dioceses in which communion without baptism was reported. However, the argument is not made as to why these respondent dioceses should be considered typical. So, for example, in Province II: the fact that 100% of the two dioceses responding have some reports of CWOB gives no reason to believe that the other ten dioceses in the province allow CWOB. It may indicate need for further research. We may speculate as to why the other ten dioceses didn’t respond; but the information provided doesn’t give us grounds for assertion one way or the other. It may be, then, that reports of (much less officially allowing) CWOB in Province II at the time was 17% (two of twelve) rather than 100%. Again, the question is not whether this is the information received, but whether the information received provides us meaningful information.
I do find myself wondering how the phrase “open communion” came to be applied to CWOB. All my experience has been the phrase applied to accepting to the table persons who came, whom we assumed to be baptized and admitted in their own churches (as the canons say), but not known members of the Episcopal Church. Christian siblings in the Roman church or the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, in officially practicing “closed communion,” do not deny my baptism, nor even its efficacy; but because I am not a member of their specific communions I cannot participate.
At one point in my career I worked under the authority of Bishop Alex Dickson in the Diocese of West Tennessee. I distinctly remember discussing with him children coming and asking for communion in the company of their parents, but without knowledge of their baptism. His comment was, “When in doubt, feed.” He and I agreed on little, but I have always remembered that.
Add some cheese and you got a good summer outing. 1 makes a good point.
#2,
There is a big difference between ‘when in doubt, feed’ in regards to whether one is coming to receive w/o baptism, and stating from the altar, “all are welcome whether one has been baptised into Christianity or not”. In the old days, 19th Century, there was often a requirement that anyone wishing to receive communion had to present themselves to the church during the week before to ‘sign up’ so the church could make sure one was a baptised Christian. I assume that this applied to visitors to the parish, but I am not sure.
The reason I cancelled my subscription to the ECUSA daily devotional “Forward Day by Day” was because one month the author (usually anonymous) bemoaned the fact that her Buddhist friend visiting from California for a wedding could not take communion, and insisted in the devotion for the day, that this was equal to a spiritual crime and “we need to do away with the baptismal requirement for joining in the communion feast”. I wrote them the next day and cancelled.
Peace
Jim Elliott
Marshall, #2, we appreciate your care in noting the issue of respondent vs. non-respondent dioceses. That is always a very tricky issue in statistics. I work with databases and surveys constantly for my “real job.” So I share your concerns on how data is reported.
Your point is exactly why we noted that even if all of the other ECUSA dioceses had replied NO (i.e. that they do not allow CWOB), we would still be left with a percentage of between 24% minimum to 31% maximum that DO practice CWOB based on this survey. 24 dioceses admit the practice. Basically 1/4th of ECUSA’s domestic dioceses. It’s not that small a number. So, I was not trying to claim the respondents are representative. Even if they are not, the data make a pretty startling point.
I also agree with you that “Open Communion” was traditionally used to refer to the practice of allowing all baptized Christians to receive Communion within the Episcopal Church (unlike the Roman Catholic church or denominations such as LCMS.) Thus its use to refer to Communion without Baptism (CWOB) is confusing. We’d really like to encourage the use of the much more precise phrase CWOB from here on out to discuss this practice / doctrine.
Back in Sept 2004, the Living Church had an article on CWOB where they used the term “Open Communion”:
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=2453
Also, there were quite a few reappraising parishes who adopted the term, probably because it sounded so welcoming.
Here is one example:
[url=http://web.archive.org/web/20040904140842/http://www.stchriskb.org/] The Sept 2004 archive of the home page of St. Christopher’s Key Biscayne, Diocese of SE Florida[/url]
[blockquote][b]Open Communion[/b]
Anyone who seeks to encounter Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist is welcome to receive Holy Communion here at St. Christopher’s. Everyone is welcome, without reservation.
[b]Open Baptism[/b]
In keeping with the understanding that the Holy Spirit moves people in different ways and at varying speeds, St. Christopher’s by-the-Sea is one of several Episcopal churches in the Diocese of Southeast Florida that offers Baptism “with no strings attached.”
Anyone who seeks to be baptized, or to have a child baptized, is welcome without regard to their church membership, their faith tradition, or other factors. Our parish baptized 22 new Christians during 2002, a new record and a strong response to our first year of “open baptism.”
Individuals requesting baptism for themselves or a child will be given a brief instruction on the nature of the sacrament so that they understand what they are requesting. They are not required to join the church, though everyone is welcome. Further spiritual growth can be expected as the newly baptized continue their journey in the community of the church, said Father Sinisi. No one who desires to become part of the Body of Christ will be turned away, whether or not they or their families are members of the church. […]
The practice of Open Baptism has been growing in the Episcopal Diocese of Southeast Florida recently with the encouragement of the Rt. Rev. Leopold Frade, bishop of the diocese. The mobility of the population, along with high rates of interdenominational marriage and other factors, have led to the presence of a large number of residents who are “unchurched.” These families may include unbaptized adults, or the adults may be uncertain of where they can go to baptize their children if they are not members of a particular church or denomination.
Open baptism is offered to remove any barriers and uncertainties and welcome these individuals and families without “strings”.[/blockquote]
Note: it is perhaps of interest in the context of this discussion to note that the church in question above, St. Christopher’s Key Biscayne has since changed its website.
http://www.stchriskb.org/
The references to “Open Communion” and “Open Baptism” are gone. We understand from a source in the diocese that following complaints from various members of the dioceses, and the expression of concern by at least one other bishop who knows +Frade well, Bp. Frade issued a pastoral directive that the canons should be followed in the matters of Communion and Baptisms. So he is no longer officially encouraging those practices.
Just a bit of proof that blogs have their influence, and that sometimes these discussions can make a difference. It was posts like [url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=2044]this one by Kendall[/url] that prompted some of the letters of concern to +Frade.
There is an interesting disconnect about this in my own parish. In the buletin we have a resolution from a General Convention printed that says that only those baptized should take communion, but we are on supply priests and occasionally one of them will say that they welcome all to come up for communion. My personal feeling is rather like the “one-night-stand” comment in the previous post on this, open communion disrespects the importance of the sacrament.
This is the one heresy of the Episcopal Church that just takes my breath away. It’s not just a question of disrespect and potential desecration of the sacrament. The Apostle Paul very clearly taught that you put your health and life in danger if you come to the Table unprepared or not understanding the significance of what you are doing. You can’t get any stronger than this:
The fact that ECUSA simply ignores that warning and puts the unsaved into danger is mind-boggling. Or, I am sad to say, it demonstrates that the elements in the Episcopal Church now have no efficacy. (Yes, I realize my last statement is a variant of the so-called Donatist heresy, but that is the conclusion I have drawn with ECUSA. The Holy Spirit has left this church.)
As to whether “open communion” happens, it is certainly happening at the parish I used to go to many years ago while in college. One of the recent alumni magazine issues I received focused on “spirituality” at my college. One of the articles talked about the local Episcopal church next to the college, how it in typical fashion was “diverse,” “inclusive,” “open and affirming,” and then went on to talk about the fact there was no requirement you had to be a Christian to attend and take communion.
I just checked out the church’s website however, and can’t find any express reference there on its communion policy. So I can see how this is a difficult thing to verify.
Is this a serious question? Do you really think that Baptists and other non-sacramental Protestants (including evangelical Episcopalians) have no grounds for their very close communion practices without a belief in transubstantiation? The reverse question could be asked with just as much gravity- if something happens to the bread and wine, what’s the problem?
I now go to an evangelical presbyterian church. I suspect our view of communion is different from what the Episcopal Church used to believe (I have never been able to get my arms around all the different theological positions churches subscribe to: transubstantiation, consubstantiation, symbolic, memorial, remembrance, etc.) But I do know that our pastors take the Bible seriously and believe what it says. So, it is made clear that only those who have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior and have been baptized should take communion. And we are periodically warned by our pastors that communion is a serious thing, and that we should examine our consciences and our Christian life before we take communion.
Marshall and all, in wanting to be sure the data is absolutely clear in what can be asserted and what can not be asserted, I’ve added this disclaimer in the text above:
Note that the bottom line totals represent the % practicing CWOB among responding dioceses in each Province. They cannot be assumed to be representative of other dioceses that did not respond. Yet, these data do give an idea of at least the MINIMUM number of dioceses per province practicing CWOB.
I’ve also modified the Excel spreadsheet ( http://kendallharmon.net/t19/media/CWOB_data_NCal_Survey2.xls ) so that it also shows the minimum total per province (i.e. dioceses responding yes in the province / all dioceses in the province).
That’s as clear as I can make it. As noted above, that gives us a total of 23% MINIMUM of ECUSA domestic dioceses which in 2004-2005 reported allowing CWOB. The reality is likely to be much closer to half of all dioceses if the survey is at all representative.
Maybe we ought to reexamine the ontological/existential aspects of Holy Communion from a modern (postmodern) perspective and determine its applicability to those without baptism instead of following the mythological (scriptural), and antiquated metaphysical (i.e. transubstantiation, consubstantiation, real presence) categories.
If we understand our relationship to God as familial and baptism as our adoption into the family (body) by God, then communion is our means of nourishment. But if a non-family member (who hungers for God and relationship with him, even though not understanding that relationship), I don’t see letting him/her go hungry just because he/she is not in our family.
I, for one, would like to hear from priests in these “open communion dioceses,” such as N. Calif. If you do not believe that open communion should be practised, how much pressure are you under to conform to the diocesan norm? Does your bishop allow you to adhere to your beliefs? Please answer anonymously, if you need to.
12 – Mythological and antiquated? Rather strong words? Though you may choose to use these catagories to try to subvert the importance of Christian belief, just because something is old does not mean that it is dated.
One aspect of our relationship with God is familial, and thus belief, baptism, and (I would add) confirmation all strengthen that relationship. But communion is not the only source or nourishment availible to believers. You are forgetting prayer and study among other sources. You are also forgetting that relationships grow, and here the “one-night-stand” metaphor holds true again. The Holy Eucharist is an example of God’s love for us demonstrated, not something to be jumped into willy-nilly.
As a priest in an overwhelmingly reappraiser diocese, believe me, the bishop’s push to break the canonical (and scriptural) requirement for baptism before receiving communion is very, very heavy.
Whenever a lay leader goes to another (reappraiser) congregation, they see the bishop’s breaking canons (with no accountability) in practice. Whenever the bishops of our diocese celebrate the Holy Mysteries, the bishop makes a MAJOR point of stopping just before the elements are distributed and loudly announcing, “All present who seek God are invited to receive the Bread and Wine”. Of course, this is in the face of printed instructions in the Sunday worship bulletin (which has the complete text of the service printed out for the convenience of newcomers) that ‘All who are baptized in Christ are welceome’…and which pointedly invites those not yet baptized to come to the altar rail to receive a blessing….
Let’s face it: as it has been for at least 50 years, TEC bishops get away with ANYTHING (plural marriages, preaching and teaching and profiting from books that teach heresy, etc., etc.) On the other hand, if one is a favorite priest or deacon of a particular diocesan, one can DO NO WRONG.
We’ve all seen it again and again: incompetent (sometimes immoral) priests promoted or kept on in a declining parish because the B likes them. While others (and their families) suffer economic hardship because the B decided to pursue the ‘new religion’ of TEC instead of staying true to his/her vows, and the priest of some small parish had the temerity (courage/foolishness) to stand up in public and say that the B had left the Scriptures, Tradition and Reason behind.
Because the ‘everybody-come-to-the-picnic’ idea of communion fits in very well and easily with secular thought, those priests who proclaim/practice it are usually ‘successful’ in the world’s eyes. That is, they raise lots of $$$$$ for their capital campaigns. I know at least 12 in three different dioceses who are considered ‘successful’ because each (residing in an upscale community) has recently successfully completed building campaigns for AT LEAST $5 million.
That tangible ‘success’ means that ‘everybody come to the picnic’ theology re: the Holy Communion MUST BE CORRECT, right???
Someone stated this (or something close to it) on the previous post of this issue: As the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, the Sacred Mysteries are for the baptized. I fail to see any compelling reason to re-examine this.
In our church bulletin we invite any “baptized Christian” to partake of the Eucharist. That leaves the individual to ponder two things: am I baptized and am I Christian. Down the road a peice the EC priest say: “All may come, for all are welcome.” The idea that Jesus welcomes everyone does deep injustice to the fact that at the first Eucharist only His 12 most intimate friends were present.
#8 – Jim – you make the statement that for opposing open communion, you cannot get any stronger than I Corinthians 11. Ah, but you are wrong – you can indeed get stronger. As all loyal Episcopalians know, the Canons of the Episcopal Church always trump Scripture and obeying them is much more critical than the optional recommendations in that book of ancient stories.
Title I, Canon 17, Section 7 states : “No unbaptized person shall be eligible to receive Holy Communion in this Churchâ€. Obviously all those churches where open communion is practiced are being disciplined by their Bishops for violating the Canons of the Episcopal Church, right? To not do so would give the appearance of a double standard.
The canons of the church do trump the current debate over ‘open communion.’ Yes, theologically our view of communion might need to be rethought, but until the canons are changed to reflect a new view, we should abide by them.
I wonder how much of this goes on even in fairly orthodox “reasserter” parishes. A situation which recently came to my attention was the case of a very nice family, in which “she” was a devout Southern Baptist, daughter of a preacher, “he” was lapsed Roman Catholic, and they had three wonderful teenage kids, never baptized. After many years of no church involvement, they felt the need for spiritual direction and began attending an ECUSA church where the kids were enrolled in the parish day school. Naturally, the kids accompanied their parents to the rail and naturally the rector gave everyone commmunion. Cannot blame him, I would have myself (although I would have asked some questions immediately after). The family quickly became involved in parish life, but nobody ever got around to asking about Baptism or Confirmation. The crime is not that the kids were given communion, but that they were deprived, through priestly incompetence, of the grace of baptism.
When Confirmation was side-lined as a requirement for being a regular communicant, this development was virtually inevitable.
“Maybe we ought to reexamine… mythological (scriptural), and antiquated metaphysical… categories.”
Maybe we shouldn’t. Maybe we shouldn’t try to alter 2000 years of Christian practice- all to make ourselves feel good for being “welcoming”. I guess that’s why some are reasserters and others reappraisers.
Why bothjer with baptism? After all, if one is not baptised and one goes to the communion rail, there is no lightening strike to remind the unbaptised that they have made an error. In short, being unbaptised causes no repercussions. The same is true of communion, obviously. Transgressors are never punished. God apparently doesn’t care one way of the other. So the absence of standards here is of no consequence.
What then? Both baptism and communion require that belief precede the act, or the act is meaningless. Belief, in short, establishes the standard of judgment. Can a priest require belief of a communicant? Let me put it another way: How can he NOT require it, since failure to establish this fundamental, the acts are meaningless, and meaninglessness, as I have said over and over, is the pale, invisible parasite that sucks the nutrients
from the established church’s bloodstream. Are communion and baptism supposed to mean anything to the participant? Well, if they are, what must one do to ensure that it is so? Or let me put the matter another way: What priest has the courage to demand this essential of the contemporary congregant? Can you demand belief of a baby being baptised? But can you require it of the parents. Or, how can you NOT require it of the parents? For any religion to have power and effect, one must believe something, and the problem the churches have, ours included, is that we have become so TEC-like that we feel obliged to overlook such an obvious issue of meaning for fear of losing congregants. Courage is wanting, ladies and gentlemen; the Vicar of Bray is coming our way. It is damned hard to stand straight with no spine. LM
I would be remiss not to mention a certain “Historical Document” also known as the 39 Articles which say those without a lively faith eat their own condemnation.
I apologize for not having the specific title, but in the 1970s a Swedish United Methodist bishop wrote a deep and well-received book on Charles Wesley’s sacramental theology. One point therein that has stuck with me through the years was that Fr. Charles advocated Holy Communion for the unbaptized if they approached it with a reverent heart. Fr. Charles knew that the sacrament was far more than a memorial, and he believed that its real effect of personal communion with our Lord would work within those who received it in the right spirit (those who had first believed) and lead them into salvation through Christ.
Those of us who remember the 18th C know that it was often an unchurched and rebellious world, as is ours.
Bryan,
here is the relevant passage to which you refer in its entirety:
[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.
[i]instead of following the mythological (scriptural), and antiquated metaphysical (i.e. transubstantiation, consubstantiation, real presence) categories.[/i]
That we have communion at all is because we are told to in Scripture by Christ. I get the feeling that our modern, reasoned assessment is sometimes more about keeping the fancy dress and ceremony and chucking the meaning. Sort of like keeping an oyster shell and throwing away the pearl.
Some of us (liberals) believe that reason is the great testing ground for doctrine. Doctrine isn’t cast in stone, never to be changed. (St. Paul wasn’t properly a trinitarian for instance, but not condemned because of his beliefs). Reason isn’t subordinate (as with reformed theology) to scripture or tradition, but the way we test our sources. All three sources have there function: scripture as the starting point, tradition as the interpretive source, and reason as the testing source. Our traditional interpretations change as what we held of old doesn’t hold up to reasonable criticism.
Unfortunately, many of us (liberals) see that ‘rationalism’ (as an establisher of truth) has failed, and have regressed to irrationalism. Instead we should note that reason doesn’t establish anything, but is only a critical test mechanism for determining what is false.
RE: 5,6,11: Thanks for sharing the clarification.
“Reappraiser” that I am (or certainly would be styled here), I am certainly concerned about CWOB, and the possibility of 23% of dioceses in which it is permitted, and is perhaps encouraged is grounds for deep reflection. I am also aware of the tradition from the earliest church of those who were “baptised in blood:” that is, they went to martyrdom for the faith without being baptized baptism with water, and were considered full members of the Body of Christ in view of the faith they demonstrated (St. Alban’s executioner, and the 40th martyr of Sebaste come to mind).
By God’s grace, all of us receive wihout perfect understanding of the mystery of the Eucharist and how Christ is truly present in the elements of bread and wine; for all our theological understandings ultimately point us more deeply toward acts of God beyond our comprehension. I would not discount the possiblity of someone receiving truly unworthily, with bad intent. I can’t imagine Christ would reject the person who came moved by faith with honest intent; and ultimately that is something only Christ would be sure of.
28, then let them make a commitment to Jesus first. Otherwise let them throw the sacriment on the ground.
Baptoism is serious business or it isn’t. If it is a form, so be it, and let us worry no more about it. If it is serious and has a real bearing (in substance and canon) then a reverent heart doesn’t cut it. I can imagine a reverent heart being sufficient, to make it all that is necessary means that we had better change the law. I can also imagine a reverent heart being a thing of the moment, like tears at the sad part of the movie. I am profoundly suspicious of someone who tells me he has a reverent heart but no belief. Yeah, right. Larry
Beloved,
Charles Wesley spoke of people who were moved to believe by hearing God’s Word preached to them and, seeing Holy Communion celebrated, were also moved to partake of it. Certain people commenting here seem to assume that everyone who believes has been baptised. That is not so. It is not even remotely so. God takes us as we come to Him. He calls us to the water, and He calls us to the table. If we are baptized, we will be called to the table. If we come as surprised guests to the table and are asked to stay, we will likely follow Him down to the river.
This is not at all the same as saying that anyone should receive communion. Those who receive it falsely purchase damnation, and many do. It would take a false person, one already damned, to come unbaptized to the altar and let Jesus serve her without believing there was any possibility sne would be saved.
If she did believe that coming to Jesus would save her, how would she feel when she was turned away? This is America. Who is in charge of baptisms and who keeps the records?
Dale,
From the beginning of the Church, eucharist was a sacrament reserved for those who had been baptised. The letters from the early Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr (in his apologia) makes it clear that only those baptised could partake of the bread and wine. And there are many others who have written thusly. Of course it was also understood that those who were baptised were baptised after instruction and catechism into the faith. In other words, there was something that was seen as NEEDED before one could come to the table.
We cannot just throw out such testimony as irrelevent. These people were taught by the Apostles themselves in many cases. By saying Baptism in unnecessary for receiving communion, it is putting the cart before the horse.
One last thought: we are not talking as citizens of any earthly country. We are following the rules set up by citizens of a heavenly kingdom, following the rules set up by those the King put in charge when He left to ascend to His Father’s right hand.
Saying “this is America” is irrelevent in terms of eternity and becoming kids of the Kingdom.
God does not follow our laws, even when we think those laws are just. Earthly kingdoms (and democracies) come and go, and their laws crumble into dust and are blown away or looked at as qaint museum pieces. “the grass withers, the flower fades … ”
However, we must follow His, even the ones we think are unjust. In the end, [i]they[/i] are the words of eternal life. “But your laws, O Lord are forever!”
Jim,
God bless you. He gave us free will and judgment so that we could be landscapers, not lawnmowers 🙂
Please consider that you are talking about those confirmed in the faith. Everything I have said is about evangelism in general and God in particular. How would you explain this to someone outside it all?
Odd for me that this issue was raised. My church is doing a new website. Our previous one stated that we offer “open communion” By that, its author clearly meant, to him, “all baptised persons” The new website reads:” We welcome all baptized persons to share communion.” If the survey authors googled our previous website, they would have concluded that our policy was to include all with or without. The “open communion” of today has a different definition. Did anybody tell the responding congregations?
Emily, PLEASE read the report linked above. They made every effort to be extremely clear in what was being asked and discussed.
From the bottom of page 1 of the survey report:
[blockquote]Early in our explorations we saw the need to define clearly the terms we were discussing and recognize the spectrum of opinions. We discovered very quickly that the common term “Open Communion†has been used both historically and ecumenically in ways other than the usage in the current debate. Originally, the term was used in the Episcopal Church in regard to the question that came to the fore in the 1960s as to whether or not baptized communicants in churches not in communion with the Episcopal Church should receive the sacrament in our parishes. It was an ecumenical issue rather than one concerning baptism. The term “Open Communion†is still discussed in such a context in
churches such as the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod.
The term “Open Communion†was thus considered imprecise and, perhaps, misleading. We have opted for the admittedly more awkward, but more accurate, “Communion without Baptism†(hereafter “CWOBâ€, while the canonical practice will be called
“Communion with Baptism†or “CWBâ€1).[/blockquote]
And here is what was asked of the bishops of other dioceses:
[blockquote]We asked Bishop Lamb to contact his colleagues in the House of Bishops to inquire after their policies and practices. He asked them if there were congregations practicing CWOB, and whether or not they had made any official statements regarding the matter or if they had groups working on this issue. We were also interested in knowing if any disciplinary actions had been made in regard to this matter.[/blockquote]
[blockquote]Maybe we ought to reexamine the ontological/existential aspects of Holy Communion from a modern (postmodern) perspective and determine its applicability to those without baptism instead of following the mythological (scriptural), and antiquated metaphysical (i.e. transubstantiation, consubstantiation, real presence) categories.[/blockquote]
Good grief! The only reason we celebrate communion at all is because we are following the “mythological (scriptural), and antiquated metaphysical (i.e. transubstantiation, consubstantiation, real presence) categories” of the early and historic church.
To continue the practice while abandoning the very reasons for the practice is to lapse into sheer irrationality. The same practice without the same meaning is not the same practice.
Within the Roman Catholic tradition, in addition to baptism of water and blood was baptism of desire. How does this tradition fit in to how a soul might be responding with love and hope and “desire” during the service. Is it possible that Communion is the road to belief vs belief the road to communion? Luther said faith comes through hearing. For others, faith may come through practice? And how does “belief” as in a affirmation of tenets, fit into religuous experience and spirituality? Sometimes I am really sad that the entire mystical tradition of Christianity (a la The Cloud of Unkowing, St. John of the Cross, Teresa de Avila )…a way of “knowing” that is non-cognitive simply gets missed in all this? Following on the work of the author of Cloud, is the dart of longing love of which he speaks? Is that a “baptism of desire”?
Frankly I would think that someone, not baptised with water, who approached the altar rail with such longing would be one whose faith and hope would have prepared them… their “knowing” and “assent” differently manifested, but just as valid?
I suppose if you consider Christianity as based on myth and superstition and really nothing than a social club or social activist organization then you don’t really need any sacraments, doctrine or beliefs. All you need are rules and regulations to run the club. You certainly don’t need anything that remotely resembles historic Christianity. And if that is the case I can think of a lot better things to do on a Sunday.
Emily,
The Roman Catholic church realizes three baptisms that were effacious to meet the requirement of baptism:
Baptism in water
Baptism by desire
Baptism by blood
The first was/is mandated for ALL believers in most common circumstances.
The second two were held that if a person came to belief, and then [i]DIED[/i] before being baptised in water, then these would be considered sufficient to meet the required baptism.
Baptism by desire would be allowed if a person Believed (came to saving faith in Jesus) and intended to be baptized, but died of natural causes or accident before the sacrament could be administered.
Baptism by blood was the condition where a person Believed (came to saving faith in Jesus) but was killed for his faith (martyrdom) before the sacrament could be administered.
So, the argument is a good one, but not valid for this discussion.
oops, this sentence
[i]Baptism by desire would be allowed [/i]
should read
Baptism by desire would be [i]acknowledged[/i]
By the way, one cannot receive communion in the Roman Catholic Church WITHOUT being baptised in water. That’s one of the purposes for the rite of First Holy Communion, usually around 1st grade for children, but right after baptism for adults.
Sounds to me like an accurate description of TEC, Br. Michael!
27 – Virgil, I’m not quite sure what you mean by stating that “liberals†(which is really a mostly useless term) are the only ones who use reason to understand doctrine. I am not all that familiar with Andrews, but I am sure he would have a different opinion of your notion of the three legged stool.
It is sometimes the case that with increased evidence opinions of doctrine change, for better or worse; but I have not seen any discussion (at least on this board) to make me change my opinion on the matter. The major argument, as I see it, for CWOB is that it is a question of Christ’s hospitality to those who feel drawn to him. And can be a useful “witnessing†opportunity to express the presence of Christ to those who do not know him. Both are good arguments, but I don’t know if they rise above the argument against them shown in how the Church has practiced the sacrament for the last two millennia. The Christian should know that he or she drawn to the rail by Christ to receive Christ, but can we say that someone who is not baptized does not know the same? I think that the major argument against CWOB comes down to the determination that there is something fundamentally different between the baptized Christian and the Non-Christian. By the grace of God the baptized are joined to Christ in a way that does not exist in those who are not baptized. To say other than this is to preach that all paths are equally valid, denying the uniqueness of the Christian experience.
#43…You’re correct that liberal is a very inadequate word, but reappraiser, progressive, etc. are also so broad or polemical that they aren’t much better.
I wasn’t inferring in my post that non-liberals (there’s that awful word again) don’t respect reason, they certainly do. But many subordinate reason to scripture and tradition which can lead to a staid (rather than dynamic) orthodoxy.
Unfortunately, we liberals have often failed to recognize the limits of reason or have given up on reason altogether for irrationalism. There is a realistic approach we can take to reason in order to avoid the fideism on both sides (conservative and liberal) and the rationalism of some on the liberal side.
In relation to “open communion” the catholic church throughout history has rejected it, but has this resulted in that staid orthodoxy I mentioned earlier? Just because we respect scripture and tradition doesn’t mean we should ignore rational criticism of both and rethink our position of the sacraments in new and dynamic ways.
Yes to scripture, tradition, and reason; No to biblicism, traditionalism, and rationalism.
44, and that is the great problem. You appear to view “scripture, tradition, and reason” on an equal basis with Descartian reason at least more equal than others. Most of us follow Hooker: Scripture is first, interpreted by reason (as instructed bythe Holy Spirit) and the tradition of the Church.
#45…Descartian rationalism, heaven forbid! That is the rationalism I mention negatively above. Reason only has a negative function: winnowing out the false; it never establishes truth, but only examines the sources of truth, whether they be nature, scripture, tradition, experience, or whatever.
Anytime reason operates, it doesn’t operate on its own independently of the others (scripture, tradition, reason). Without the sources of scripture and tradition, reasoning about Christian religion wouldn’t be possible any more than the reasoning of science would be possible without the empirical world, the primary source of science.
In regards to Hooker, note that he didn’t view all of scripture as having eternal relevance. How did he determine the relevance of various scriptural propositions? He used reason with the aid of tradition. He didn’t of course view reason as an external critique mechanism (as I do), but as internal to scripture itself.
I feel rather dumb for confusing Andrews and Hooker but…
But how is CWOB reasonable? And how does denying it result in a “staid orthodoxy?” For that matter, why is orthodoxy staid? To steal a line from ++Rowan Williams, I find it to be a remarkably large room to live in. I haven’t yet heard an argument that convinces me that CWOB is a “better” plan than the traditional path of Christian belief.
“but only examines the sources of truth, whether they be nature, scripture, tradition, experience, or whatever.” Which has to mean that, for you reason is the final authority. You use it to discard those parts of scripture that you don’t find reasonable.
#48…I consider “authority” as something positive: something establishing (confirming, justifying ) ‘x’ as true solely by appealing to it as an authority. Since my view is that reason has a negative function, I don’t consider it authority, since it doesn’t establish anything as true, only eliminates falsity.
#48 and 49: What can reason do. esp. what can it do that is not “negative.” What is can do positively is determine probabilities, not certainties. Faith speak of certainties. But if you’re going to live in the 21st C, you have do deal with what is probable.
If the question is, Is the universe the result of intelligent design, your answers will only be of probabilities. E.g., we know what “intelligent” means to a human being, and from it we may extrapolate to what is known of the universe’s structure, and we may lay against this what we know of random activity, of chance. We see that the universe is tightly structured; that pattern is everywhere to be found, that there is nothing chaotic, that virtually everything yields to rational examination, and we ask whether these are characteristics of intelligence or randomness. OUr answer is circumstantial evidence, to be sure, but as Henry Thoreau said, “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in milk.” LM
49, do you use reason to declare something in the Scripture as false? If so, then you are elevating reason over Scripture because you are judging Scripture by reason. In other words that which you use as the yardstick is your authority.
I don’t think that your distinction between positive and negative ultimately holds up. If you disprove a fact, you positivly establish another fact.
#51…We definitely have a different concept of authority. Assuming that ‘negative’ reason has authority (it would be testing authority, not truth establishment authority), then yes, we could use it to show parts of scripture to be false. Modus tollens (if p, then q; not-q //therefore not-p) would show the ‘negative’ (testing) authority as logically possible, but one could not say truth establishment authority was possible (if p, then q; q //therefore p is fallacious).
If reason had absolutely no authority (using a looser definition than I would use), then we have no basis for hypothesizing that scripture, tradition, or anything else has authority. It would all become relative to the observer: I declare ‘x’ source an authority or I declare ‘x’ source as not authoritative, and ‘y’ source authoritative.
I declare scripture as not-authoritative, but I do declare the Quaran authoritative as it is from God. Without reason, no one could rationally argue with me on this.
The reason I consider ‘reason’ as not an authority is that the fallibilist hypothesis (in regard to negative reason) itself could be false, basically self-applicable, therefore not an authority.
Br. Michael,
For as Long as I have been reading Virgil’s posts (both on the AAC blog and here), I have yet to see him give a simple, clear answer that could be understood by the questioner. Instead we get posts laden with the most incomprehensible philosophic polemics laden with quotes from post-modern philosophers who have no faith in God, no belief in the authority of the Bible and little knowledge of Christianity in general, except as something to be attacked.
I gave up engaging him in discussion LOOOOONG ago.
Br. Michael,
One of the problems of this medium (blogs) is that any position proposed is going to be presented in a choppy, incomplete, and unclear manner, especially if one beliefs are complex. I would imagine, you’ve run into the same problem, but that shouldn’t stop you from contributing. Only the portion of the ice berg above the water is visible and unless one has the whole picture, it’s difficult to judge the credibility of someone’s argument.
In studying philosophy and theology for the last twenty years, I have found a philosophy that allows me to remain rational and at the same time a Christian. It’s a position espoused by the late philosopher Sir Karl R. Popper modified by the position of his disciple W. W. Bartley III. ([pan] critical rationalism).
In theology I have been influenced by such moderns as Hans Kung, Derek Stanesby, Alister McGrath, Arthur Peacocke, John Macquarrie and many others.
The discussion on open vs. close communion is an ongoing problem in Christian theology. It has ramifications across denominational lines. In the Episcopal church it has both canonical and theological aspects. (One thing about theological problems: That is how we do theology. Identify the problem, offer a hypothesis solving the problem, observe criticisms of the hypothesis, and if it survives the criticism, tentatively hold the hypothesis. Criticism is our friend. We need to critique, critique the critiques and so forth until we reach a viable hypothesis.
Larrry Morse asked above [i]Baptoism is serious business or it isn’t. If it is a form, so be it, and let us worry no more about it. If it is serious and has a real bearing (in substance and canon) then a reverent heart doesn’t cut it.[/i] and I don’t believe any one posted an answer. Please allow me to post this from the articles:
[b]XVII. Of Baptism[/b]
Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.
The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.
Virgil, I have no idea what you said. I must agree with 53.
Re: #53: I should have posted that to Br. Michael privately. But I didn’t think of that since I forgot this forum has the mechanism to do so!
My apologies to all.
44. Virgil in Tacoma
Luther said that Madam Reason was a great whore. It has no place in Church doctrine or evaluating Scripture.
Virgil in Tacoma wrote at #12:
[blockquote] “Maybe we ought to reexamine the ontological/existential aspects of Holy Communion from a modern (postmodern) perspective and determine its applicability to those without baptism instead of following the mythological (scriptural), and antiquated metaphysical (i.e. transubstantiation, consubstantiation, real presence) categories.”
[/blockquote]
If you despise scripture because it is “mythological”, and theology because it is “antiquated”, then you have no place in the running of a Christian church.
[blockquote] “But if a non-family member (who hungers for God and relationship with him, even though not understanding that relationship), I don’t see letting him/her go hungry just because he/she is not in our family.” [/blockquote]
Of course not. We will do anything good that we can for that non-family member.
But letting them share in Holy Communion would be a very bad thing to do for them, because it would erroneously convey to them that they are in the family. Which they aren’t. And they need to get in the family, because the consequences of not being in it are not good at all.
Little Cabbage wrote at #15,
[blockquote] “Let’s face it: as it has been for at least 50 years, TEC bishops get away with ANYTHING (plural marriages, preaching and teaching and profiting from books that teach heresy, etc., etc.) On the other hand, if one is a favorite priest or deacon of a particular diocesan, one can DO NO WRONG.” [/blockquote]
This sort of corruption is precisely the reason that TEC is declining in number and income. It is rapidly losing its credibility as a church.
Little Cabbage wrote at #15,
[blockquote] “Let’s face it: as it has been for at least 50 years, TEC bishops get away with ANYTHING (plural marriages, preaching and teaching and profiting from books that teach heresy, etc., etc.) On the other hand, if one is a favorite priest or deacon of a particular diocesan, one can DO NO WRONG.” [/blockquote]
This sort of corruption is the wages of liberalism. As you point out, it has been around a long time, at least since +Pike was not disciplined, following through +Spong at al, and in more modern times the incompetent +Griswold and the apostate Katherine Schori.
This is why TEC is declining in number and income. It is rapidly losing its credibility as a church.
Apologies for the double post above.
Virgil in Tacoma at #27 wrote:
[blockquote] “Some of us (liberals) believe that reason is the great testing ground for doctrine.” [/blockquote]
In the end, that means only that you want to change the doctrine that you find too challenging or inconvenient. I know you want to convince yourself otherwise. But really, reading your posts is like listening to Communists in the 1970s continually trying to convince others (or rather, themselves) that communism could work, it just hadn’t been done properly yet.
[blockquote] “Doctrine isn’t cast in stone, never to be changed. (St. Paul wasn’t properly a trinitarian for instance, but not condemned because of his beliefs).” [/blockquote]
You clearly do not understand either St Paul or trinitarianism.
[blockquote] “Reason isn’t subordinate (as with reformed theology) to scripture or tradition, but the way we test our sources.” [/blockquote]
Nice theory, but in practice it never happens that way. You liberals have ended up where you were always going to end up – with no identifiable basis for your beliefs, and in a complete muddle.
[blockquote] “All three sources have there function: scripture as the starting point, tradition as the interpretive source, and reason as the testing source. Our traditional interpretations change as what we held of old doesn’t hold up to reasonable criticism.” [/blockquote]
This sounds good to the unwise, but (a) it isn’t true – no reasonable criticism has required a change in Scripture; and (b) it always leads to irrationality.
It is precisely the exaggerated, simple, focus on “real presence” at the expense of the “proclaiming the Lord’s death until He comes,” which has made this error possible. No real Reformation Protestant, of any stripe, could possibly allow this distressing innovation. I’m sorry, nwlayman, but I have yet to meet a Episcopal revisionist who lacked a robust doctrine of Christ’s bodily, substantial, presence in the Eucharist, even if (inconsistently) they did not believe in God.
If communion is not an entering into the mystery by which we are saved from sin, by Christ’s cross, then it IS immoral to refuse God’s simple gift of Himself (or should I say “god’s self) to any who apply to that gift of His presence.