It
has been an issue for many clergy (at least the honest ones) to look
out on Easter morning and see the faces of people they have rarely or
never seen. Who are these people? Why will they not be here next
Sunday? It is nice to have a full church, but why just on this
Sunday? Is it their new clothes? Is it because they have a church
standard which requires them to attend twice per year? Is it because
God or the resurrection story has somehow touched them and they just
felt they had to be there?
What
ever the reason, these folks are there. Now arises the real
questions. What do we do with them? How do we treat them? Will
they return? Does it matter? Are they welcome?
Here
is how many Episcopal churches respond. At a point before the
beginning of the consecration of the elements at the altar a priest
will say something like this: “The Episcopal Church is an open
communion church. All baptized persons are welcome to receive
communion at this altar.” (Then follows a commentary on how to
hold your hands to receive the host/bread, how to receive the
chalice, and how to conduct yourself if you want to come forward for
a blessing).
I
just want to scream at this point. I look at the program for Good
Friday and there it is in print, right after the Lord's Prayer, BCP,
Page 364. “All baptized Christians are now invited to receive Holy
Communion.”
What
are we doing? What kind of place is our church? We welcome people
who are visiting. We tell them we are glad to have them with us. We
don't care if they came with a friend, because they know a member,
because they say an ad in the paper, because they felt a message from
the Holy Spirit, or if they just wondered in from the street. We
welcome them and ask them to fill out a card in the pew and give us
their name and a way we might be in touch with them and really
welcome them.
HOWEVER,
when it comes time for communion – only the baptized are invited to
the altar.
What
are we telling people who find their way in, feel a warm welcome, and
then, at the big moment, we say, “Not so fast there, newcomer.”
Is
that what we want? Let us stop this. Everyone is welcome at the
table. This is not our table. It is God's table.
In
the past few months, I have heard two priests say this in the
liturgy. Once at a funeral and once at the blessing of a couple.
These were special times.
I
thought perhaps we were getting better. Alas, it has not been heard
since by me.
It
is my belief that every celebration is a special time, but I have
been disappointed before. I, a baptized person, have been in
churches where I was not welcome at the altar and it felt very bad.
There was a sense that whatever God I knew, it was not enough to take
communion in that place. It is a terrible feeling to be in a church
and to be thought of as unwelcome at the altar. I do not wish that
on anyone from any church or from no church. Our God is larger than
that.
The
issue is really about us and how we wish to be a welcoming community.
This is not yesteryear. It is now and it is us.
Please,
let us be more Christ like. Happy Easter to all.
Right on!
ReplyDeleteI always say "This is God's table and it is God's feast for you who are all God's people. Everyone is invited to come forward and be fed." This means EVERYONE!
ReplyDeleteThank you, Robert, for your faithful teaching over the years! Indeed, "everyone is welcome at the table. This is not our table. It is God's table." How true.
ReplyDeleteOne of the best comments, ever, on this blog. How many baptized Christians were there at the Last Supper? When did we become so exclusive?
ReplyDeleteThank you, Ron, Anonymous, John and RJ. Glad to know you are all on the train.
ReplyDeleteYour Grace,
ReplyDeleteI can see both sides of the issue. This i assume grew out of the early churches persecution, and the need to protect itself. granted, we are no longer persecuted and have thankfully changed our practices (i.e. the dismissal of catechumans), but what about the responsibility that recieving the sacraments requires? should not one at least have a basic understanding of christ and grace? what will this do the sacrament of confirmation if it is no longer required? when i first encountered this, it actually made me want to learn more and find out what was so amazing about this gift! if someone is not mature in their faith and will not return to a church because of this,are they ready? i just stumbled on your blog, and look forward to reading more!
To the last anonymous, thank you for your obvious thoughtfulness. Your desire to immerse yourself in the sacramental life and awareness in the Church is truly faithful, I think. Pastorally I found it impossible very long ago to deny anyone communion unless it was a parent,who when asked,did not wish their child to receive for their own reason(s). Desiring communion is in my experience a reality of faith that "passeth all understanding." Confirmation, in so far as we still practice it, has been since the present Prayer Book's institution about making a reaffirmed or progressively mature commitment to the Body of Christ, not about being authorized or in some sense licensed to full participation. To remember, we actually give the baptizing priest, the blessed oil from the bishop to "seal" the person into the Church. We almost removed Confirmation entirely. For some years, a program called Living Into Our Baptism existed in many dioceses for the faithful of all ages to take a course of learning and go to the local cathedral in Holy Week to have the bishop affirm by laying on of hands that reaffirmed commitment. And of course, Reaffirmation is very common in the Church, whether done with historic clarity or not. Back to communion, the only concern, it seems to me, would be about some person who consistently receives and that would be for lay persons and the priest to find out and/or encourage the person to join in more fully into the life of the congregation. The person would either give notice of their actual status as either baptized (and registered into the records if they wished to do so) or not and, if not, to be encouraged to freely desire to become so. However, that person would not be ever denied communion unless they would make a personal choice to not take communion as some form of spiritual discipline in preparation for baptism.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree! We need to stop with the litmus tests at the communion rail. Come to God's house and eat!
ReplyDeleteGood job Bob. The question is whether or not we will practice the radical hospitality of Jesus in the gospels or restrict his Body and Blood to the "in group" only. We need to make the decision to reach out to everyone and not set up a verbal barrier at the announcements. When I was young, even though it was assumed that Confirmation was the meal ticket to Holy Communion, my priest never made an announcement about this nor did he ever question anyone who came to the communion rail. Why do some think they need to do it today?
ReplyDeleteGet Real! Open Communion is like Open Marriage -- without commitment neither is real. Perhaps you should consider how the dumbing-down of the clergy contributes to the decline of the Church.
ReplyDeleteHow about Missouri Synod Lutheran? Keep it closed and check'em at the door for eligibility, very simple and fully exclusive. Now that's like really closed, elite and clear, anonymous and should fit you nicely.
ReplyDeletei wish i would have chosen another name for my google profile, i see now that anonymous could get me into trouble. thank you, your grace for the response. over the years i have dropped some of my legalism, but not blindly and am more inclined to ask questions. one of the reasons i was "de-romanized" as my recieving bp. called it. when you mentioned the parents, what are your thoughts on that? my wife and i have discussed withholding from our daughter until she is confirmed. maybe we should reconsider, and wait until she can make a confident choice of her own? these are the conversations that make being anglican so fun! haha.
ReplyDeleteTo the second to last Anonymous: Yesterday, the Church was filled with Baptized Christians that I won’t see again until Christmas. There may have also been a few non-Baptized searchers who could only be spectators, because they hadn’t received the special hands-on when they were babies. Exactly what commitment are we talking about with that first group that’s so special?
ReplyDeletegiven the medicinal qualities of the sacrament, one could make argument that the initial reception of eucharist could draw one in to a deeper desire for commitment. although i would say the oppisite about marriage.
ReplyDeleteRon, listen to yourself; you espouse an open communion but as soon as a differing opinion surfaces you want to exile that person, as you said, "the Missouri Synod ...should fit you nicely." Is the Table open only to those who think like you? Is this how you practice hospitality? Sort of hypocritical don't you think? Perhaps you should consider changing your blog name to Episcopal Journey of No Hope.
ReplyDeleteI was only suggesting the shoes that seemed to fit you as to your specifications; however, I will always buy you lunch. . .
ReplyDeletei wouldn't mind some lunch! lent is over, how bout steak!?!
ReplyDeleteIf you are in the KC area, you are on; regular or consecrated beef? ;)))
ReplyDeleteHAHAHA!! nice.
ReplyDeleteInteresting discussion! The church I attend has open communion, so anyone can participate at any time. I joined this episcopal church about 5 years ago, with no religious background prior. I would say that offering open communion, from my point of view, was missing a chance to teach someone new about what the church believes in, what these rituals mean. I am not sure if i was baptised or not (apparently my grandmother had taken me to a church once to do this, but none of those in the area i've contacted have records of it.). I guess it doesn't matter what happend 30 years ago, but i would have actually welcomed the experience of learning about baptism and the meaning of communion before participating. I've read quite a bit individually, and was also confirmed a couple of years ago, but that also was more me reading and learning on my own rather than a community experience.
ReplyDeleteSaving communion until someone learns a little about what it means provides an opportunity for people in the church to welcome new members -- not in a superficial way, but actually teaching them what the church belives and then inviting them to participate in a personal manner. As a newcomer, i would not have felt left out, i would expect that people would want me to understand something about it before participating. And i think it would mean a lot to become a member in this way rather than the all-are-welcome hands off approach -- I showed up and started participating, people assumed I was already a Christian, and a lot of what I've learned about Christianity has taken place in front of my computer.
Just another viewpoint.
To the last anonymous, I think you make a very valid point. Of course, I do not know the practice in your congregation, but some congregations do two different but related things: 1. A periodic instructed liturgy about Eucharist which of necessity includes something of Baptism. 2. Actual renewal of baptism classes to go through to remind interested folks about what their mature responsibilities are as baptized persons. Certainly these two programs could be suggested. Thanks.
ReplyDelete