Communion Without Baptism

[mark46]

I understand arguing from Tradition that communion is only for the baptized. I would note that this argument applies to almost any significant change.

There are different understanding of Eucharist. I will presume the traditional Anglican understanding that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist.

My understanding is that Eucharist is the Lord's Table, the Table of Plenty, the spiritual meal.

We invite non-Anglicans and non-believers to worship with us. We invite these folks to experience God in his Word, and in his Spirit that is with us as we pray.
===========
I don't think that Scripture teaches us that the alien should be refused a meal, or a seat at the table. Jesus often eats with unbelievers. Sometimes, he has folks called off the street to receive a meal. Paul cautions that the unworthy should not receive. Are unbelievers unworthy? Is that our view: is it God's view? Aren't we all unworthy? Catholics used to go to weekly confession on Saturday before receiving on Sunday, so that they could be worthy. Confession is fine, but I don't think of it as a requirement in order to receive.

Why is it so outlandish for us to expect that God may choose to allow a non-believer to experience his might work through receiving the Eucharist.

It seems somehow wrong to invite someone to a spiritual meal, and then to deny this person the main course.
=========
I understand that some churches restrict Eucharist to members. This is generally not the Anglican view of Eucharist. We restrict communion to those who are baptized, or sometimes those who can receive in their own church. Of course, this is on the "honor" system, as it is in any church.
========
I recall the Catholic hymn "Taste and See". Should we not allow seekers to taste and see the goodness of the Lord?

To be clear, do we truly believe that Jesus (as priest) would refuse anyone who seeks?
=========
My BOTTOM LINE is that we should be very clear in our understanding of the meaning of the Eucharist. Jesus is truly present. I am not so sure that we should be denying God the opportunity to reach out to the non-believer through the receiving of the Eucharist. I certainly don't find this decision as outrageous or heretical.

 

[Sean611]

I understand arguing from Tradition that communion is only for the baptized. I would note that this argument applies to almost any significant change.

There are different understanding of Eucharist. I will presume the traditional Anglican understanding that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist.

My understanding is that Eucharist is the Lord's Table, the Table of Plenty, the spiritual meal.

I would say all this is accurate.

We invite non-Anglicans and non-believers to worship with us. We invite these folks to experience God in his Word, and in his Spirit that is with us as we pray.
===========
I don't think that Scripture teaches us that the alien should be refused a meal, or a seat at the table. Jesus often eats with unbelievers. Sometimes, he has folks called off the street to receive a meal. Paul cautions that the unworthy should not receive. Are unbelievers unworthy? Is that our view: is it God's view? Aren't we all unworthy? Catholics used to go to weekly confession on Saturday before receiving on Sunday, so that they could be worthy. Confession is fine, but I don't think of it as a requirement in order to receive.

This where we part ways. Yes, Jesus eats with outcasts, sinners, and unbelievers. However, was this the Eucharist and who did Christ share the Eucharist with? It seems that he shared the Eucharist with those he was closest to, his followers.

I'd say that Paul's view is God's view or else who gets to decide whether or not what Paul is teaching is truly inspired? This isn't some simple matter of cultural differences or changes in cultural custom, but who should receive the Eucharist.

Why is it so outlandish for us to expect that God may choose to allow a non-believer to experience his might work through receiving the Eucharist.

Why is it so outlandish to reserve the Eucharist for baptized believers? Why can't God show his might through baptism and call those to baptism? After all, God is the one who does the calling and the saving. We don't do the calling and we don't do the saving, it is God who works through us. We take a really small view of the power of God if we assume that some will never be called because they don't receive the Eucharist before baptism.

It seems somehow wrong to invite someone to a spiritual meal, and then to deny this person the main course.
=========

Is it wrong or disrespectful to expect somebody to follow the stated rules of any organization? If you go to a Masonic Lodge (or any fraternity/organization) one night and demand they share everything with you, would you consider yourself cheated or wronged if they didn't share these things with you? Perhaps those who are called to the table will strongly consider baptism and will be moved to act on being baptized.

I understand that some churches restrict Eucharist to members. This is generally not the Anglican view of Eucharist. We restrict communion to those who are baptized, or sometimes those who can receive in their own church. Of course, this is on the "honor" system, as it is in any church.
========

We should never "police" the altar, however, we should also take Paul's warning very seriously.

I recall the Catholic hymn "Taste and See". Should we not allow seekers to taste and see the goodness of the Lord?

I'm just not sure how excluding someone from a Christian sacrament for believing Christians is somehow wrong?

To be clear, do we truly believe that Jesus (as priest) would refuse anyone who seeks?
=========

Again, did he share the Eucharist with non-believers? If so, evidence?

My BOTTOM LINE is that we should be very clear in our understanding of the meaning of the Eucharist. Jesus is truly present. I am not so sure that we should be denying God the opportunity to reach out to the non-believer through the receiving of the Eucharist. I certainly don't find this decision as outrageous or heretical.

Is is really too much to consider baptism first? The Eucharist isn't just some feel good meal, it is something very important and it should be treated importantly and with care (as Paul says).

 

[mark46]

I would say all this is accurate.



This where we part ways. Yes, Jesus eats with outcasts, sinners, and unbelievers. However, was this the Eucharist and who did Christ share the Eucharist with? It seems that he shared the Eucharist with those he was closest to, his followers.

I'd say that Paul's view is God's view or else who gets to decide whether or not what Paul is teaching is truly inspired? This isn't some simple matter of cultural differences or changes in cultural custom, but who should receive the Eucharist.



Why is it so outlandish to reserve the Eucharist for baptized believers? Why can't God show his might through baptism and call those to baptism? After all, God is the one who does the calling and the saving. We don't do the calling and we don't do the saving, it is God who works through us. We take a really small view of the power of God if we assume that some will never be called because they don't receive the Eucharist before baptism.



Is it wrong or disrespectful to expect somebody to follow the stated rules of any organization? If you go to a Masonic Lodge (or any fraternity/organization) one night and demand they share everything with you, would you consider yourself cheated or wronged if they didn't share these things with you? Perhaps those who are called to the table will strongly consider baptism and will be moved to act on being baptized.



We should never "police" the altar, however, we should also take Paul's warning very seriously.



I'm just not sure how excluding someone from a Christian sacrament for believing Christians is somehow wrong?



Again, did he share the Eucharist with non-believers? If so, evidence?



Is is really too much to consider baptism first? The Eucharist isn't just some feel good meal, it is something very important and it should be treated importantly and with care (as Paul says).

I do not believe that either view is outlandish.

Yes, guests should observe the rules. Non-believers have no rights to receive. That is NOT the question. The issue is whether we should welcome the unbaptized to experience God in word and sacrament, or whether the unbaptized should be welcomed only to witness our worship service and not fully participate.

Jesus only shared Eucharist with apostles.

I AGREE that requiring baptism is NOT too much to ask. I think all of God's people should be baptized. I am personally somewhat shocked that some believers are not baptized as children. Again that is not the issue. The issue is how we should treat guests and seekers. And yes, there is a theological issue here. Is eucharist the sign of unity, and the acknowledgement that we are all Christians, the current majority Anglican view. Is it the sign of unity, and the acknowledgment of being part of a particular denomination or even parish, the Orthodox view.

The open question is whether unbelievers should be welcome to the Table. Perhaps nothing will happen. Perhaps, God will choose to act on the person receiving. Should this be for God to choose, or for us. As Church, we choose whether to invite the seeker to the Table or whether to make clear that this sacrament is restricted to those who have been baptized. IMHO, the choice is a choice, a man-made rule.

To be clear, I favor the current practice, but I certainly understand the other view, and can see its merits. I favor the current practice because this is Tradition of the Church and there is no NEED to change the practice. On the other hand, I am not one who takes my interpretation of one verse by Paul to be the answer to this issue for all time. Perhaps, I have a different view of the primacy of Scripture.

Do you believe that all who ate at the Table in the Book Of Acts were baptized? Do you think that all who ate at the Table in the early Church were baptized. I suspect that this was NOT the case. I certainly don't understand those who would leave the Church over this definition of the requirements of the sacrament. Of course, I shouldn't be surprised. Folks have left because of the change in definitions of the requirements of Holy Orders and Marriage.
=========

 

[Liberasit]

In our fellowship, we invite those in our church family that are not only baptised, but also confirmed, to share in the Lord's Supper.

However, for visitors, we say that if they participate in the Lord's Supper in their home church, they are welcome to do the same in ours. This includes children in CofE fellowships where they take communion.

 

[CanadianAnglican]

I think if we look at a slightly larger context of St Paul's warning against receiving unworthily gives a fairly clear picture of what that warning was against:

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgement on himself.

Baptism is the standard by which we have traditionally held that someone knows and understands these requirements prior to receiving. In the case of those who receive Holy Baptism as infants, Confirmation is used as the Sacrament by which a believer confirms their understanding and acceptance of the promises made on their behalf.

It is utterly against the rules of Christian charity to allow someone to receive unworthily (to their condemnation), even if it may cause them distress because they do not understand why they are being denied.

There are many ways of exposing a guest/seeker to the glory and power of God that don't place that person in a state of sin or condemnation.

 

[Fish and Bread]

I think if we look at a slightly larger context of St Paul's warning against receiving unworthily gives a fairly clear picture of what that warning was against

Many interpret St. Paul's admonition in that passage to be a response to early Christians who were being irreverent and failing to recognize in the way they received that they were not simply having a regular meal. The thought goes that people would push in line to get up front, eat and drink until they were sick to their stomach or drunk, and sometimes bring their own bread to be blessed and not share with the less fortunate Christians there. Thus, in that context, if people are correct about the context, then St. Paul was simply arguing that people must show some decorum and recognize that this was a sacrament in remembrance of Christ and not unlimited bread and beer night at the Colosseum, or a time to emphasis class distinctions.

So, if we are going by that understanding, the question then becomes, could non-Christian seekers at a Eucharist understand that they were not just having a free meal and that they were doing something special with religious connotations? I think they could and probably do where fully open communion is practiced. After all, the modern liturgy in a church setting with the whole liturgy of the Eucharist and reverent atmosphere leading to it's very small bit of bread and sip of wine in relative prayerful science, sometimes taken kneeling at altar rails, is pretty hard to mistake for an all-you-can-eat buffet at the local restaurant or an open-bar at a wedding. Also, by ceasing to bar them from the altar rail, it eliminates something that resembles a class distinction, so it might be in the spirit of St. Paul's admonition if the interpretation from the first paragraph is what is being taught.

Of course, others hold that St. Paul is saying that one must be free of sin, or in a state of grace, to receive. That is the Roman Catholic position, for example. But I don't think that is the Episcopal Church's position, for the most part. So, once we get to where the Episcopal Church is, I think inviting everyone to the Lord's table makes sense. We're all children of God. We are all welcome to share in God's bounty. I think open communion in general tends to fit in with the very strong emphasis on inclusivity- ordination of women, ordination of gays, same-sex marriage, etc.. It's something that reflects the theology of the (Episcopal) church. Though there is nothing wrong with limiting communion to the baptized, I don't think it's a rule that reflects the theology of the Episcopal Church very well anymore. The Episcopal Church, for better or for worse, is in a different place, and it as might as well kind of go over everything with a fine tooth comb and make everything consistent and cohesive- which probably means an open table.

I think most of the people who are walking walked in the aftermath of 2003. I was emailing a priest who said that in his parish 1/3 of the most conservative people left after 2003 (before his tenure). He described a diverse crowd that remained, which he said included some conservatives still, but he said that even the most conservative were welcoming to him- and his husband. So, I think the Episcopal Church has pretty much lost all the conservatives who are going to leave (In general terms- obviously I'm not saying not a single person will leave over a given change, I am just saying the statistically significant departures of large groups of people are probably done with). The progressives and moderates who remain as might as well go where they think the spirit is leading them and present as cohesive a package to evangelize to potential converts and to retain members who share their faith as they can. There isn't really much of a pastoral reason left to equivocate at this point. 50ish years after Bishop Pike (who landed on the cover of Time magazine for denying the Virgin Birth), 40ish years after ordaining women, decades after Bishop Spong (the anti-theism guy), 12 years after Bishop Robinson (the first openly gay bishop), and days after officially affirming gay marriage (While having had blessings in some dioceses for decades); I think it's safe to assume that the Rush Limbaugh listeners willing to leave have already left. Any who remain at this point have probably just held up their hands and said "No mas" and are going to be in that seat in that pew in that church no matter what. Time to move forward.

At the very least, I think it makes sense to pass a resolution making this an option at the parish level so that the parishes that practice open communion to the unbaptized and have for years can be normalized and aren't violating the canons any longer. It's not good practice to let parishes just openly violate canons. And since the church isn't going to tell them to stop communing the baptized in this case, if they aren't going to make communion for all the official rule everywhere, they should at least make it an "at the priest's discretion" type of thing. That way, parishes on both sides of this issue can keep on doing whatever it is that they are currently doing and all be in line with the canon.

I actually kind of wonder how often this issue really comes up in practice anyway. Do a ton of Jews show up at parishes and complain that they can't receive the Eucharist or something?

 

[mark46]

I actually kind of wonder how often this issue really comes up in practice anyway. Do a ton of Jews show up at parishes and complain that they can't receive the Eucharist or something?

There are many denominations that baptize as adults. We have been told here that many Anglican congregations do not baptize children. Should we refuse a family that comes forward for baptism? What about seekers who have not yet been baptized? I don't think that this should be a huge issue, but it is. Many in TEC believe that Jesus did indeed called children and unbelievers to himself and to the table. Obviously many do not.

 

[FireDragon76]

Many interpret St. Paul's admonition in that passage to be a response to early Christians who were being irreverent and failing to recognize in the way they received that they were not simply having a regular meal.

Yup... that's a fairly common consensus among all sorts of different Christians. Not that "you must believe everything we do exactly as we do or the Eucharist might harm you". I think that idea is appalling to most mainline Protestants- that's why the ELCA, Methodists, and Presbyterians have broad altar fellowship with many other Protestant churches.

Personally, I don't really have an issue with "closed communion" to the unbaptized. It's respecting an ancient Christian custom. The practice of blessing the unbaptized also is not necessarily showing a lack of hospitality. As the Lutheran pastor I know says, if someone unbaptized wants the Body and Blood of Christ, they can always come to him and he will baptize them as soon as possible, and catechism can come later.

 

[graceandpeace]

I think if someone comes to the altar, they should not be turned away. If they specifically make it a point to announce they are not baptized, let the priest use their best judgment. That's the honor system.

 

[Albion]

There are many denominations that baptize as adults. We have been told here that many Anglican congregations do not baptize children.

We have?

Is it wrong or disrespectful to expect somebody to follow the stated rules of any organization? If you go to a Masonic Lodge (or any fraternity/organization) one night and demand they share everything with you, would you consider yourself cheated or wronged if they didn't share these things with you?

That seems to me like a very good argument. But to be clear, it's an argument against opening communion to the unbaptized.

 

[mark46]

That seems to me like a very good argument. But to be clear, it's an argument against opening communion to the unbaptized.

The argument seems to argue that we can have rules that should be followed.

 

[mark46]

We have?

I had always presumed that he norm in Anglican churches was infant baptism as it is in Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian churches. Several posted that in the CoE and indeed in other Anglican faith communities, infant baptism was optional. I was surprised. I would be happy to be in error in this matter. Of course, infant baptism has somewhat different meanings in the different churches.

 

[Albion]

I had always presumed that he norm in Anglican churches was infant baptism as it is in Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian churches. Several posted that in the CoE and indeed in other Anglican faith communities, infant baptism was optional. I was surprised. I would be happy to be in error in this matter. Of course, infant baptism has somewhat different meanings in the different churches.

In the case of the CofE, I can't say. I believe it's safe to say that there is almost no "Low Church" in the USA that is as low as it is in England. But the "infant baptism optional" idea is unknown to me in the USA. That doesn't mean it's never to be encountered, but I still think it's very unusual, unless something is meant by the term that's not what I think.

 

[FireDragon76]

In the case of the CofE, I can't say. I believe it's safe to say that there is almost no "Low Church" in the USA that is as low as it is in England. But the "infant baptism optional" idea is unknown to me in the USA.

At most I've heard of a few Episcopalians wanting to wait until their kids are older to baptize them. Judging by baptisms I've seen at churches, I'm guessing that "christening" is less a cultural norm now.

The early church had both pedobaptism and credobaptism. Infant baptism only became a norm because the laws of Justinian and other Roman emperors imposed death upon anyone that resisted infant baptism.

 

[Liberasit]

I had always presumed that he norm in Anglican churches was infant baptism as it is in Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian churches. Several posted that in the CoE and indeed in other Anglican faith communities, infant baptism was optional. I was surprised. I would be happy to be in error in this matter. Of course, infant baptism has somewhat different meanings in the different churches.

Everything to do with church is optional. Participation is voluntary.

Here in the CofE, we are fans of discipleship. We believe that, with the help of the Holy Spirit, they can make their own choices.

In the CofE, we baptise infants of believing parents and older children/adults who have made their own choice to follow Christ. Belief always precedes an efficacious baptism.

We have a Thanksgiving rite for those parents who do not want to make the baptism promises on behalf of their infant. In our fellowship, it is about 50:50 for those parents who elect to make baptismal promises and those who just want to thank God for their child.

We have a baptistry in our church for full immersion baptisms. We use it for our teens who have always been part of our church family but whose parents did not want to make baptismal promises on their behalf, but also for those who have come to Christ later in life. Not everyone is brought up in a practising Christian household so have no notion of church thought their childhood.

 

[mark46]

Everything to do with church is optional. Participation is voluntary.

Here in the CofE, we are fans of discipleship. We believe that, with the help of the Holy Spirit, they can make their own choices.

In the CofE, we baptise infants of believing parents and older children/adults who have made their own choice to follow Christ. Belief always precedes an efficacious baptism.

We have a Thanksgiving rite for those parents who do not want to make the baptism promises on behalf of their infant. In our fellowship, it is about 50:50 for those parents who elect to make baptismal promises and those who just want to thank God for their child.

We have a baptistry in our church for full immersion baptisms. We use it for our teens who have always been part of our church family but whose parents did not want to make baptismal promises on their behalf, but also for those who have come to Christ later in life. Not everyone is brought up in a practising Christian household so have no notion of church thought their childhood.

QED

 

[higgs2]

I agree with the OP and I hope that TEC will address it at the next convention, although the way things stand now I don't hold out much hope for open communion to make it past the House of Bishops.

 

[Fish and Bread]

I agree with the OP and I hope that TEC will address it at the next convention, although the way things stand now I don't hold out much hope for open communion to make it past the House of Bishops.

Higgs! Long time, no read. Welcome back.