questions about schism in the Anglican Communion?

[Albion]

I'm sympathetic to the Open Communion view myself, but the 'rub' is that there are certain visitors who consider themselves to be Christian--Mormons, for example--but we know that their theology is, well, you know...

...and there are people who consider themselves to be Christian because of some personal standard they think sufficient but who have no church membership and never were baptized anywhere. Some of these will also approach the Communion rail.

So, is there some line that ought not to be crossed by the Church, or is it totally up to the communicant?

Is it handled by putting a statement in the bulletin or making an announcement from the altar, and then not policing the communicants? That seems to be the approach taken by some parishes and clergy, but I wonder.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

I'm sympathetic to the Open Communion view myself, but the 'rub' is that there are certain visitors who consider themselves to be Christian--Mormons, for example--but we know that their theology is, well, you know...

...and there are people who consider themselves to be Christian because of some personal standard they think sufficient but who have no church membership and never were baptized anywhere. Some of these will also approach the Communion rail.

So, is there some line that ought not to be crossed by the Church, or is it totally up to the communicant?

Is it handled by putting a statement in the bulletin or making an announcement from the altar, and then not policing the communicants? That seems to be the approach taken by some parishes and clergy, but I wonder.

These issues should be dealt with pastorally rather than using a rule book.

 

[Albion]

These issues should be dealt with pastorally rather than using a rule book.

I cannot agree with that IF you mean that each priest should be on his or her own to decide whether there should be any restrictions at all.

If there are some, and there is a question in the visitor's mind concerning whether or not he meets the expectations of the church, then speaking with the rector in advance is of course right to do.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

I cannot agree with that IF you mean that each priest should be on his or her own to decide whether there should be any restrictions at all.

If there are some, and there is a question in the visitor's mind concerning whether or not he meets the expectations of the church, then speaking with the rector in advance is of course right to do.

I mean that we talk to one another - build relationships. A church is so much more than the presbyter. There are wardens, sidespeople, welcome team, communion servers, and everyone else. Surely someone will talk to a newcomer.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

In my fellowship, we leave it up to individual adults to decide. I can’t imagine not letting someone have communion.

However, if I were so desperate as to go to a church with a closed communion policy, instead of telling someone they were not allowed to have communion, I would approach it as what can we do together to overcome these barriers.

 

[PloverWing]

Is it handled by putting a statement in the bulletin or making an announcement from the altar, and then not policing the communicants?

That's the approach I've most often seen in Episcopal churches in my area. The "everyone is welcome" quote that I posted from my previous rector was the statement he used to make just before beginning the Eucharistic prayer when he saw there were visitors in the congregation. My current rector, slightly stricter, says during the announcements that "all baptized Christians" are welcome. In other parishes, I sometimes see a statement in the bulletin.

I'm in a heavily Catholic area, and a number of our newcomers are ex-Catholics, used to the Catholic policy of closed communion, so it's important to make an explicit announcement to let visitors know that they're welcome at our Table even if they're not Episcopalian.

We also have a significant Quaker presence in our community. Quakers do not practice baptism. My previous "everyone is welcome" rector had some Quaker ancestry (grandfather, I think), and perhaps that made him more aware of the possibility that a person can be a Christian without being baptized. If a person wanted to join our church formally, of course, they should be baptized; but I wouldn't be quick to turn a person away from the Table during their time of seeking and transition.

I like Naomi4Christ's approach of leaving it to a combination of individual conscience and pastoral care.

 

[Paidiske]

I'm sympathetic to the Open Communion view myself, but the 'rub' is that there are certain visitors who consider themselves to be Christian--Mormons, for example--but we know that their theology is, well, you know...

...and there are people who consider themselves to be Christian because of some personal standard they think sufficient but who have no church membership and never were baptized anywhere. Some of these will also approach the Communion rail.

So, is there some line that ought not to be crossed by the Church, or is it totally up to the communicant?

Is it handled by putting a statement in the bulletin or making an announcement from the altar, and then not policing the communicants? That seems to be the approach taken by some parishes and clergy, but I wonder.

Certainly I think if you haven't been (validly) baptised you shouldn't be taking communion.

The reality is that when someone is a visitor, you don't necessarily know. Recently I gave communion to a visitor who came up to me afterwards to tell me he wasn't baptised and didn't know what to do, so he just went along with everyone else. Not the end of the world, I said, but let's talk about baptism.

I don't want to get to the point of interrogating someone at the rail. It's not the time and place. But if I became aware that someone coming forward wasn't baptised I'd want to address that appropriately.

 

[archer75]

Certainly I think if you haven't been (validly) baptised you shouldn't be taking communion.

The reality is that when someone is a visitor, you don't necessarily know. Recently I gave communion to a visitor who came up to me afterwards to tell me he wasn't baptised and didn't know what to do, so he just went along with everyone else. Not the end of the world, I said, but let's talk about baptism.

I don't want to get to the point of interrogating someone at the rail. It's not the time and place. But if I became aware that someone coming forward wasn't baptised I'd want to address that appropriately.

I know a parish that explicitly says that they expand the usual TEC policy, and that anyone, regardless of where they are on their spiritual journey, is welcome at the Lord's table.

 

[Albion]

Reportedly, that is the next big controversy to be adjudicated at the TEC General Convention--welcoming anyone who personally values the experience, no baptism required.

 

[Paidiske]

Sigh. The dust hasn't settled on the last envelope they pushed yet, and they have to go pushing another one?

 

[archer75]

Sigh. The dust hasn't settled on the last envelope they pushed yet, and they have to go pushing another one?

If I take the last couple posts right - this is indeed not a standard Anglican practice, right? I confess I am curious about why this would be pushed for...

 

[Naomi4Christ]

Not sure about outside the U.K., but here there are loads of kites flown at General Synod, in little rooms.

This does not mean there is widespread support, or a gnat’s chance of getting through. They are a springboard for discussion.

It’s good to talk.

 

[gordonhooker]

Reportedly, that is the next big controversy to be adjudicated at the TEC General Convention--welcoming anyone who personally values the experience, no baptism required.

Hmmmm that is not something my parish priest would encourage that is for sure.

 

[mark46]

I found it difficult to get a clear answer on the web to this question, which is why I said we'll need someone from ACNA to answer it. From what I did read, it seems they are rightly more concerned about one being spiritually prepared to participate in the Eucharist more so than being closed to this or that group.

What say you ACNA friends?

All who are baptized and in good standing in the church are welcome at the Table at our ACNA church.

 

[mark46]

Perhaps we use "open" differently. By "open", we mean all those properly baptized and in good standing in their church. Mormons, Christian Scientists, and Jehovah's Witnesses would not "qualify".

I'm sympathetic to the Open Communion view myself, but the 'rub' is that there are certain visitors who consider themselves to be Christian--Mormons, for example--but we know that their theology is, well, you know...

...and there are people who consider themselves to be Christian because of some personal standard they think sufficient but who have no church membership and never were baptized anywhere. Some of these will also approach the Communion rail.

So, is there some line that ought not to be crossed by the Church, or is it totally up to the communicant?

Is it handled by putting a statement in the bulletin or making an announcement from the altar, and then not policing the communicants? That seems to be the approach taken by some parishes and clergy, but I wonder.

 

[JamieRedheadUK]

Reportedly, that is the next big controversy to be adjudicated at the TEC General Convention--welcoming anyone who personally values the experience, no baptism required.

That is frankly disgusting and heretical practice.