One of the hottest debates of the Episcopal General Convention this year is the subject of “Open” versus “Closed” Communion. The battle lines have been drawn. On one side are those who want communion open to “all people” as “God’s people”. They feel that closed communion is “theological insider baseball” used as an excuse for “gatekeeping” by a hierarchy which implicitly denies God’s Love for all. On the other side are those who fear lack of adequate preparation for reception of the sacrament for those who are not baptized into the Covenant People of the Church. For these people, it isn’t gatekeeping, but maintaining the vital link between the “sacrament of new birth” into the Covenant Family in Baptism, and the “family meal” which is served in the Eucharist.
I know this can be confusing and a bit clunky in terminology, so here is an explainer: "Open Communion" is the practice of inviting anyone who desires to partake in the sacrament of Holy Communion. Anyone at all is welcome, no qualifications, unless they have been barred from communion (i.e. excommunicated by a bishop) for moral acts which harm themselves or harm others. "Closed Communion" is the practice of only allowing those baptized into the Christian Church to receive communion. The non-baptized must be baptized into "the family of God" to partake rightfully in the "family meal" (unless they are excommunicated for moral issues).
The official position of the Episcopal Church is so-called “Closed Communion”, which is exceptionally "open" because we allow any baptized person to partake, not just Episcopalians. This is actually much more open than Catholic or Orthodox or Traditionalist Protestants, because we have allowed any person baptized in any Christian Church to receive communion with us for decades. In fact, around a half-a-century ago, what is now known as Closed Communion was called Open Communion and considered very radical to traditionalists then.
But “Closed Communion” is the official stance of the Episcopal Church UNLESS the local bishop releases the diocese or individual parishes to practice “Open Communion” (and usually that "release" comes in the form of not enforcing official policies). In reality, I estimate over 90% of clergy pay lip service to Baptism being necessary to Communion, while in fact no one is checking, and all are welcome in a de facto sense. As a school chaplain, this is what I practiced for the last decade. Since communion is the Family Meal of our school community, and since we are dealing with students from all kinds of churches and religions and no religion at all, it is highly impractical to check baptismal status, and it would make students feel unwelcome in the chapel they go to five days per week. Such exclusion could only push students away from Christ, not encourage them to draw near.
However, I think the assertions of “gatekeeping” by critics of Closed Communion do not really understand the wariness of the Closed Communion crowd. It is not the case that we have masses of unbaptized people demanding some kind of God-given "right" to communion. And I think relying on some generic sense of all humanity as the “people of God” who deserve the meal is not a very strong theological ground to build Open Communion on. If there is a case to be made for Open Communion, it must be grounded in the person and work of Christ as the Incarnation of God.
I would rather move the locus of Communal identity from “people of God” or “children of God” to “Body of Christ”. All people are children of God if one holds a high view of what it means to be made in “imago dei” (in the image of God). But even with that, not all are part of the Body of Christ. To be an extension of Christ’s body, one must be sacramentally incorporated. And that sacramental incorporation is by baptism and faith.
So, if the Church is a continuation of Christ's incarnation in a real ontological sense— if we are to do the kinds of things Christ does by the power of his Spirit working through us as we extend his love in the world as his hands and feet— then we must ask: Which view of Eucharist most plausibly continues the work of the incarnation? What analogies can we draw from the actual ministry and actions of Christ?
Did Christ offer his incarnate body for the salvation and healing of the world, regardless of their membership? Yes.
Did Christ feed multitudes of people by taking, blessing, breaking, and giving bread to them, regardless of their membership? Yes. And note the pattern of "take, bless, break, give" we find in all of Jesus' miracles of feeding the multitudes is the same pattern we use as we "take, bless, break, give" the sacrament of the Eucharist.
Did Christ include people in his final meal who might be considered “unworthy”, such as Judas would would betray him (cf. Luke 22.19-23), as well as at least 10 others who would abandon him? Yes.
If Christ himself went out of his way to welcome those who are unworthy— and we ALL are unworthy and unable to merit the grace and Love of God— then why would we exclude some from the Eucharist on the basis of not meeting a criteria of baptism?
But does not Saint Paul warn us of partaking in the Eucharist “unworthily”, and that unworthy participation can harm those who are not prepared for it? Yes, he did in 1Corinthians 11.17-34. But in that passage Paul does not mention baptism as a prerequisite for the meal (in fact nowhere in the New Testament is baptism mentioned as a prerequisite). What he does mention as a prerequisite is this:
“For all who eat and drink without discerning the body eat and drink judgment against themselves. For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died… But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If you are hungry, eat at home, so that when you come together, it will not be for your condemnation…” [note the next chapter is on “The Body of Christ” which is the Christian Community]
As I have written about before, “discerning the body” is not so much about having an adequate theological theory to explain how Christ is present in the bread and wine (whether transubstantiation or consubstantiation or representation or some other theory). Rather, as this passage makes clear, “discerning the body” is a moral preparation of recognizing and respecting the life of Christ in the gathered body of people who are partaking in the sacramental body of bread. Preparing ourselves for Eucharist is about treating others as Christ would treat them, welcoming one another as Christ has welcomed us, and feeding them as Christ would feed them.
Thus, it seems to me that Open Communion seems more Biblical and Theologically adequate, in light of a God who became incarnate as a human to give life to the world, and who shared his Last Supper with even those who would reject him. If Jesus welcomes them to his table, if he welcomes the thief on the cross into his Kingdom, then Jesus welcomes anyone and everyone who feels called to partake in Holy Communion. For me, the Open Communion stance is a closer analogue to the ministry of Jesus, in his incarnate body, than the stance of Closed Communion.
Furthermore, Open Communion seems to better fit most cultural traditions around the concept of a “Thanksgiving Meal”. In most cultures that I am aware of, their version(s) of a Thanksgiving Meal is offered by family elders, and focused on members of the family, but almost always includes friends of the family and those who may become part of the family (such as girlfriends and boyfriends). The meal, although family focused, becomes a site of hospitality that extends beyond family.
I think that “Open Communion”, following the Pattern of the Incarnation and the Nature of the Thanksgiving Meal is not only the most appropriate pattern. It also is what we already implicitly practice. The truth seems to be that the vast majority of parishes and priests have been following this for decades. We might call it “Don’t ask, don't tell” communion: We may say only the baptized are welcome to receive, but we don’t check credentials, especially with guests. The stance of Open Communion is more honest with what we already practice. And even if we continue to verbally affirm Closed Communion, we will effectively and regularly practice Open Communion anyway.
Finally, pastorally, I’ve known far too many cases where hospitality, welcome, and inclusion in Eucharist led to baptism and confirmation. In at least two cases I know personally, partaking in Eucharist at the beginning of a person’s spiritual journey (prior to baptism) led eventually to later ordination. The sacramental welcome in Eucharist is powerful, and when used well, leads to evangelism and conversion as people experience the love of Jesus both in the body of the sacrament and the body of the faithful. Put bluntly: It is much easier to help someone come to embrace Christian identity in baptism after they have already been welcomed and fed in Communion than it is to withhold communion as a “bait” or “reward” for finally getting baptized.
So, without lessening the theology of the “chosen” nature of the Church as Christ’s hands and feet in the world, I would advocate de-tethering Eucharist reception from membership, and understand it according to the pattern Christ embodied: As an evangelistic invitation to receive and be fed by the Life of Christ, eventually leading to adoption into Christ’s Body by baptism.
_______________________
Addendum dealing with some objections.
If you have read everything above, you have fully grasped my argument. These are merely additional observations. As I have written this post and received feedback, some pertinent objections have come up. I will share them and some answers to them below:
First, it could be objected that explicitly "Open Communion" is a deviation from the historic practice of the churches, and could hinder our ecumenical relations with other churches who hold to these older norms of practice.
In reply: As the Church grows into the fullness of the Gospel, certain practices will change over time. Just as an Acorn becomes an Oak Tree, so also the same spiritual DNA of Christ will lead the Church to develop in very different ways over time. In the last century, the full inclusion of women and LGBTQ persons into the life of the Church is such a change. And a change for the better, which better reflects the Apostolic insight of Galatians 3.28: "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."
The re-visioning of the practice of Ordination and Marriage is analogous to the re-visioning of the practice of Eucharist. So, I’m not too worried about ecumenical relations in this issue, since our stance on women and LGBTQ persons in ministry will pretty much shut doors with those who are going to shut them. That is to say: If another church is willing to go with us on these re-visionings of the theology of ordination and marriage, they will likely be with us on Open Communion. And if they aren’t with us on women and LGBTQ persons, it won’t matter how we view communion anyway.
Second, it could objected that since one aspect of the Eucharist is to unite us with the sacrifice of Christ, it is improper for someone who is not joined to Christ in baptism to be united with him by partaking in communion. As our Eucharistic Prayer B states: “Unite us to your Son in his sacrifice, that we may be acceptable through him, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit” (BCP 369).
In reply: I do not see any direct disconnect between the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist (which I embrace) and allowing all who feel drawn to Christ to partake in Eucharist. It is often precisely the sacrificial aspect of Christ's life, death, and resurrection that draws people to embrace him, and then become baptized. As Jesus says of his own sacrifice: "'When I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself' He said this to indicate the kind of death he was to die." (John 12.32-33) And as I note in the essay, the thief on the cross next to Jesus was literally united with him in the same sacrifice, and was promised by Christ to be united with him in Paradise, even though he had not been baptized (cf. Luke 22.39-43).
After this, the thief was baptized into Christ through his death, as is the classical teaching of the Church regarding the so-called "baptism of blood" (cf. The Catholic Catechism paragraph 1258: "those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament"). Thus, it is possible to be joined with Christ's sacrifice in Communion by faith and sincere desire, and this can lead to eventual inclusion and adoption through baptism.
Third, someone might wonder if the view I espouse is "arguing that we should basically ditch the received doctrines of both baptism and Eucharist as expressed in the BCP liturgies and catechism".
in reply: I will begin by admitting that many people in this debate seem to have very weak and poorly formed theology around the Incarnation and the sacraments which share the life of the Incarnation with humanity. So there are people in the "Open Communion" camp that do seem to want to simply "ditch" received doctrine and practice to pursue a vision rooted in cultural expectations rather than sound theology. And there are "Closed Communion" exponents whose thought is not much deeper than "it's the way we've always done it". I would disagree with both.
There's not a single aspect of either the liturgies or the catechism of the Book of Common Prayer that I have any reservations affirming or that I have not taught in a straightforward sense (i.e. without hedging). Rather, than changing our fundamental understandings of the Incarnation or his sacraments, I am simply advocating a shift from an "either/or" view of Communion to a "both/and" view.
What I mean is this: In the so-called "closed communion" view, the arrow of inclusion seems to flow one way:
"Closed": Baptism --> Communion
This seems to flow from a logic of "either/or": EITHER you are baptized to become part of the social Body of Christ, OR you may not partake in the sacramental Body of Christ.
All I want to do is to understand Baptism AND Communion as we traditionally have, while ALSO drawing the arrow of inclusion both ways:
"Open": Baptism <--> Communion
This allows the recognition that yes, the normative path is adoption/rebirth by baptism, followed by partaking in the family meal. But also, sometimes people have the meal first-- perhaps for years-- before they take the step of becoming part of the family. As a normative matter, baptized persons will always be the vast majority of those who take communion. But it does happen with some regularity that Christ uses Communion FIRST to change lives and THEN bring people to himself through Baptism. I've seen it dozens of times out of thousands of people who I have served Communion.
Fourth, someone may ask about the early Church's insistence that only the baptized should partake in Holy Communion.
It is true that, when the post-Apostolic fathers spoke on admission to Communion, they said baptism was a prerequisite. However, their teaching is often rooted in the idea that this is what Scripture itself entails. And the fact is that nowhere in the New Testament is baptism mentioned as a pre-requisite to partaking in Communion. All of the disciples shared Communion with Jesus in the Last Supper (yes, even Judas). But none of them were baptized in Jesus' Name, nor in the Triune Name. At best, they were baptized with the ritual washing of John the Baptizer. So Jesus himself was giving communion to a whole group of un-baptized people (if by baptism, we mean Christian Baptism in the Triune Name).
Likewise, Paul's admonitions about proper reception of Communion only specify that those who "do not discern the Body" can suffer ill effects from partaking in Communion. In context, this immediately refers to not discerning the Body of Christ in the gathered members of the Church (cf. the offenses against the Body listed in 1Co 10-11, and the teaching on the Church as the Social Body of Christ in 1Co 12). Probably we can widen Paul's meaning of "not discerning the Body of Christ" to the presence of Christ in the bread and wine itself. But this is at best implied and not as explicit as the need to discern the Social Body of Christ in the passage.
Nevertheless, early on in the development of the Church, the system of Catechesis leading to Baptism leading to Communion was established. By the end of the first century, we have the Didache 9.5 read "But let no one eat or drink of this eucharistic thanksgiving, but they that have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord hath said: Give not that which is holy to the dogs." And most early sources follow suit. However I am not sure this is entirely sufficient for understanding the proper development of the spiritual life of the church.
This is for at least three reasons: 1. Didache was not accepted as part of the Canon of Scripture, despite being written at roughly the same time and bearing the name "Teaching (didache) of the Twelve [Apostles]". 2. Part of the reason for this is that there are many elements of this book we simply do not and have never practiced across the universal Church. And 3. The explicit rationale for excluding the unbaptized here is that they are seen as unclean "dogs". Yet we are uncomfortable calling non-baptized people unclean dogs. One has to wonder why.
We may finally note that the Didache quotes our Lord Jesus himself on the dog comment. In Matthew 7.6 which directly translates as “Do not give what is holy to dogs", the immediate comment is a caution against hypocrisy and those who would condemn and exclude others on the basis of things they themselves do. It does not have even a general application to Eucharist. The only other time Jesus says something like this is the story of the Gentile Canaanite/Syrian woman seeking healing for her daughter (cf. Matthew 15; Mark 7). In it, Jesus mocks the Judean view that outsiders were "dogs" by asking whether the food that belongs to the "children" (i.e. healing for Judeans) should be given to "dogs" (i.e. people outside Judea). Then to make an example that the grace of God is for EVERYONE, Jesus then heals the daughter instantly. It seems that, at the least, the Didache badly misconstrues the teaching of Jesus, and perhaps even the meaning of Eucharist.
So, finally, what does the Episcopal Church require of us when we come to the Eucharist?
As we know, the Catechism rigorously defines the nature and effects of the grace conveyed in Baptism and Eucharist SUCH THAT both confer distinct benefits which are not necessarily sequential in the flow of time (cf. BCP pages 857-860). Both sacraments can lead to each other in a "both/and" way. Baptism is the sacrament of full membership into Christ's Body and Family, while Eucharist is a sacrament of strengthening and nourishing by Christ's life to be a foretaste of the full union in the eschaton.
And as we also know, the Catechism also never specifies that baptism is always necessary prior to communion:
It is required that we should examine our lives, repent of our sins, and be in love and charity with all people. (BCP page 860)
What I am saying is really no more and no less than this, combined with examples from Christ's incarnation, and personal experience of Communion as a powerful evangelistic means of drawing people into faith and baptism.
No comments:
Post a Comment