Resource on Baptism and Eucharist

Water, Bread and Wine is a collection of essays designed to promote conversation about the relationship between the two great "Sacraments of the Gospel" — including their sequence. I contributed to the collection, as did a number of friends and colleagues from the wider church. Each essay is followed by a series of discussion questions.

As a point of full disclosure, I have to admit I've not read all of the essays in the collection yet, as I've not received my copy. But I know there are sound and persuasive voices here, and I think I can say that the modest cost of the volume will be well worth the expense in terms of insight and reflection.

This seems to be my year for essays!

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Cb4B 2 GC

The Diocese of Eastern Oregon is bringing "communion without baptism" or "communion before baptism" to the General Convention. You can read about it here.

My observation in response to pitching this as "radical inclusivity" is simple: The church is radically inclusive and baptism is the means by which people are included. Communion is the celebration of that inclusion, not its means.

It is supremely ironic that a church that spends so much energy (rightly) celebrating the baptismal covenant could then turn its back on its significance in what seems a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of these two sacraments, and their interrelationship.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Cb4B was CwoB

Over at the Episcopal Café a discussion has appparently drawn to an inconclusive close on what is variously known as "communion before baptism," "communion without baptism," and (more confusingly for those who remember or still use the term in its older sense) "open communion." The discussion was launched from an unlikely port: the story of a Japanese UCC minister disciplined for this practice.

I have many concerns about this practice, by whatever name, and with the arguments used to support it, about most of which I have written in the past on this blog. This includes the irony of emphasis on the Baptismal Covenant while diminishing actual baptism to what seems an optional or at best secondary place in sacramental life; the loss of Morning Prayer as an alternative form of worship in many places, precisely at a time when a larger number of the unbaptized might be present; and a general interest in being hospitable and inclusive. But ultimately it seems to me that Cb4B is the wrong answer to a very real problem, or set of problems.

My greatest concern is not that the odd unbaptized individual might receive communion, or even the disciplinary lapse by which clergy in this church think it within their competence to issue a general invitation for those not baptized to receive communion.

Rather — and this comes through in some of the comments following the story cited above — it is that we risk a great devaluation of baptism, or a confusion about what baptism means in relation to being a member of the Body of Christ, at least from our perspective as part of a sacramental and catholick church.

Part of the problem, as I tried to address it at the Café, is the emphasis on sin in the Western tradition, thanks largely to Augustine of Hippo and those who emphasized this element in his work at the Reformation, including Cranmer. Thus sin becomes a lens to see both baptism and the eucharist, in ways not quite so highlighted in the Gospels and Epistles that give us what little we have to go on about either rite — both of which, if truth be told, evolve and develop in the Apostolic and Patristic era into something like their present forms.

This much can be said, however: baptism is primarily a rite of initiation into a new life, through death to self and sin, in union with Christ. The reason it rids of sin is not just by means of a "washing" or purification as in the baptism of John, but rather a union with Christ in his death. As Paul draws out this theology in Romans 6-7, it is about our being no longer subject to the law because we have died, or been liberated from its slavery. (Paul, as usual, tries to balance two analogies simultaneously, not always successfully!) It is through baptism that we come to be "united with him in his death" and come "to share in his resurrection."

And the Holy Eucharist is the celebration of that resurrection, which is not just a future event but is made real in our own bodies as we join at the Eucharistic table and are re-em-bodied and re-membered into Christ's living Body on Earth, the Church. Cranmer, and the Protestant Reformers generally, tended to fix the Eucharist to Calvary, and focus on the Paschal and Last Supper aspects of the celebration, and concerns of individual salvation: but these need not be the only emphases in our approach to this Sacrament. The rich material of the post-Apostolic era (the Didache, for example) show that early on the emphasis shifts from the personal to the corporate, and to celebration of the unified body of the Church, Christ's Body on Earth, typified in the grain gathered together and made one bread, which is only broken so that we can consume it and thereby be made One.

So, in brief, this is my argument for maintaining the traditional pattern: initiation followed by celebration. You become a member of the Body before you celebrate you membership in it. The practical concerns of a larger number of unbaptized seekers, the urge to be hospitable and inclusive, and so on, can — and must — be addressed: but there are more effective and theologically coherent ways to do so than through inverting this sequence, which tends to rob baptism of its fundamental character as a liminal rite by which one passes from this life into the risen life of God, as a member of the Body of Christ.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

DIscordance

A thing that bemuses me about Communion without Baptism [CWOB] is that it is often favored by some who make the most fuss about the Baptismal Covenant. It is deeply ironic to me that some who advance the slogan "All the sacraments for all the baptized" don't seem to realize the implication of that slogan for CWOB. One of the reasons I do not favor CWOB is my strong support for the Baptismal Covenant and all it requires, including the promise to remain faithful in "the breaking of the bread." Yes, all the sacraments for all the baptized.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

The (Other) Covenant

...The Baptismal Covenant, that is.

One would have to be living under a rock to be unaware of the prominence of the Baptismal Covenant of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer in our current ecclesiastical life and discourse. Not only is it regularly recited as part of every baptism, but it is also used in most Episcopal parishes as part of a public reaffirmation of baptismal vows several times each year. More than that, it is often cited as undergirding a particular baptismal theology that is brought to bear on issues apart from baptism itself.

I have long been aware of an inner misgiving about the extent to which the Baptismal Covenant has been employed outside of the context of baptism and reaffirmation. It was only on reading Dr. Ruth A. Meyer’s essay in the Chicago Consultation’s collection of essays on the proposed Anglican Covenant, The Genius of Anglicanism, that my misgivings took on a more precise form. This was not due to anything she said in particular, but the text stirred my mental pot. Her essay was designed to contrast the Baptismal Covenant with the proposed Anglican Covenant, and to explore the meaning of the word covenant itself. Hence the pot-stirring.

Long story short, it seems to me upon reflection that our Baptismal Covenant — in particular in the last two questions which form its coda — has exuberantly wandered into areas that are not necessarily baptismal, nor indeed necessarily Christian, and that this has distorted our baptismal theology by incorporating elements which, while certainly not inimical to it, do not properly belong to it. The liturgical revisers have gone a Milvian Bridge too far.

Let me elaborate: In case you don’t trust your memory, here are the two “questions” in question.

Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself? Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?

They were added to the rite, along with the other questions (but one — more on that anon), as a coda to the Apostles’ Creed, as identifying “some of the principal commitments that are inherent in the baptismal life.” (Prayer Book Studies 26, Supplement, p 98.) That these virtues should be practiced by all who are baptized is beyond question, but to coopt them as particularly baptismal is to some extent to water down the principal and truly characteristic features of baptism. The irony is that the same study document includes a chapter on “the Breakdown of Christendom” while the revisers were still within the thrall of that world-view. For obviously the commandment to love ones neighbor is Jewish, and the concept of the respect for the dignity of every human being is a feature of many if not most philosophical and religious traditions, perhaps most importantly rabbinic Judaism. One would certainly hope that all baptized persons will practice these virtues — what one would also hope is that any human being would practice these virtues whether baptized or not.

What I am suggesting in all of this is that at least some of our current confusion about the nature of baptism may be a result of the this revision. The revisers were keenly aware of baptism as a “border rite” marking “the boundary between Church and not-Church”; and that “being a good member of society does not necessarily support being a good Christian” (ibid., 38). Yet that did not prevent their falling precisely into the Christendom trap by including two general (and admittedly important) aspects of human virtue as the tail end of an explicitly Christian — perhaps the most intrinsically Christian — act.

It appears that in the process of creating the revised baptismal rite, those responsible lost sight of the basic context: the double meaning of baptism as remission of sin and incorporation into the church. The revisers had so lost sight of the “sin” aspect that in the proposed version (Prayer Book Studies 26, p. 13) they omitted the question, “Will you persevere in resisting evil, and, whenever you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord?” (It made it in to the 1976 Draft Proposed Book.) They did include the questions that concern the Christian life, qua Christian, that is, as part of the church: the apostles’ teaching, fellowship and worship, and the responsibility to proclaim the gospel. But the following questions, while, as I say, commendable in themselves, are hardly peculiar to baptism.

What exactly is “Christ” in all persons? If this is shorthand for “the divine image” well and good — but is that either what “Christ” means or what people will take it to mean? Doesn’t this usage, particularly linked with an originally and profoundly Jewish commandment (“love your neighbor as yourself” — Leviticus 19:18) form a kind of Christian supersessionism if not triumphalism? What is “Christ” in my non-Christian neighbor? (I may well be comfortable thinking that way, as I acknowledge Christ to be “the divine image” in perfection; but would my Jewish, Buddhist, or Muslim neighbor, to say nothing of my atheist friends, consider that an honor? In an increasingly pluralistic society, this now seems a kind of flabby or semi-conscious imperialism.

Even more, the call to respect the dignity of every human being is incumbent on every human being in virtue of their being human — it is a responsibility of our common humanity, not something additional taken on at baptism. To respect the dignity of every human being is not uniquely — or sad to say even characteristically — Christian. It is in fact profoundly disrespectful of the dignity of non-Christian human beings so to co-opt this universal human mandate as part of our peculiar Baptismal Covenant.

This overgeneralization or “spread” has had, it seems to me, the unfortunate consequence of muddying the baptismal waters and confusing or confounding being “a decent moral human being” and “being a member of the body of Christ” through initiation into that body by baptism. What purports to be a “baptismal theology” becomes another instance of Christendom at work, of a generic form of humanism.

This is by no means intended as a slap at humanism! I consider myself a humanist, and perhaps that explains my touchiness at seeing what appears to be a Christian co-option of a virtue that predates it. The failure to keep the distinction between humanism and Christianity has continued the 19th century blurring whereby “Christian” becomes not a marker denoting membership in the Body of Christ, but the very kind of vague compliment describing “a good person” that I find so repellent when used in phrases like, “that’s very Christian of you” or the converse, “you are being un-Christian.” It reminds me too much of The Worst Sermon I Ever Heard, which began (and I can remember it verbatim because it was such a shock after having heard Isaiah 1:17 as part of the first reading), “The corporal works of mercy are uniquely Christian.” (The sermon ended, “We mustn’t be like Zacchaeus, climbing trees to get away from Jesus...” Yes, it was that bad.)

But I digress. I sense we are experiencing unintended consequences, and a baptismal theology that has lost its roots in incorporation into Christ. Is it any wonder people are seeing no problem with “Communion without baptism” — if what baptism is about is being “a decent moral person” whose dignity ought to be respected as such — who are we to say that sacramental baptism should be a prerequisite to sacramental communion? If baptism is primarily about how one acts, rather than who one has become by means of it, we are treading deeply Pelagian waters, it seems to me. (Also noting that, as the tradition has it, while baptism is a prerequisite for participation in communion, so is being a moral person, living “in love and charity” with ones neighbors.)

So my question is not, Have these two questions improved our ability to live as moral human beings? I hope they have; indeed, I think perhaps they have. My question is, What has over thirty years of hearing these questions and proclaiming our assent done to our conception of baptism?

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

---

Wash before dinner

The Canadian Anglican Bishops have affirmed the standing tradition on the question of receiving communion prior to baptism. I am not particularly surprised by this affirmation. I continue to find the logic of the traditional sequence to be persuasive, in spite of the emotional appeal of the contrary position. I am much more supportive of the efforts to link baptism with eucharistic participation -- a movement not aided by our current BCP's awkward placement of the Peace so as to interrupt the flow directly into the Prayers of the People — participation in which is historically as much a sign of incorporation in the body of the faithful as the rest of the Eucharist. (This was anciently the turning point at which the catechumens were dismissed from the mysteries.)

I've rehearsed elsewhere how we have come to this pickle, in terms of up-playing the Eucharist precisely in a time when a larger number of un-baptized persons are likely to be in attendance in churches; downplaying such liturgies as Morning Prayer at which all are clearly welcome; and emphasizing formation for baptism and making it more intentional than it was in earlier days, when it was simply expected that the baby would be done. With all of these changes, like the Red Queen we need to hasten if only to stay in the same place! If that is what we want, of course... But if we are going to change, let us look at the big picture, and not tinker.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

More on CWOB

I observed in a response to a comment on the previous post that,

The church’s present liturgies were mostly composed in the era of Christendom, when it was assumed all in attendance were baptized.

This is why the liturgies themselves contained explicit invitations for the congregation to come forward to receive, without mentioning the obvious — the requirement of Baptism (or in the Anglican tradition, Confirmation). Even our present Book of Common Prayer, arguably composed in a post-Christendom era, continues this form of invitation. Needless to say, we have long since departed from the patristic and conciliar custom of dismissing the catechumens prior to the Prayers! So our liturgical language hasn't kept pace with the change in the surrounding culture. (I do note that one change the 1979 BCP made over the 1928 was to remove the italicized words in "Draw near with faith, and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort" from the invitation to Confession.)

Again, I am not arguing in favor of CWOB — I am merely pointing out the various factors that have led to the question being raised in our time.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Muddy (Baptismal) Waters

I’ve just finished reading Stephen Edmondson’s article on opening the Eucharistic table to the unbaptized, in the Spring 2009 issue of The Anglican Theological Review. I found this to be the most persuasive contribution to the discussion to date, though I remain unpersuaded that the church should move beyond discussion at the present time. However, rather than argue the merits of making such a change, I would rather briefly flag a few of the issues that, in my opinion, make this such a difficult topic to bring to conclusion either way.

Dual Purpose

Much as physicists have to try to think of light in terms of both particles and waves, theologians and liturgists have to acknowledge that baptism is an entanglement of double purposes: purification and initiation. Both elements figure in the traditional sequence of font to altar: one should wash before eating , and be part of the body before participating in the feast that celebrates the body. This has to be set side-by-side with Jesus’ downplay of contemporary purification rituals (though he by no means completely ignored them), and the openness of his table fellowship (though this has to be distinguished to some extent from the Eucharist as Paul understood it.)

A Closed Assembly

It is also important not to ignore the extent to which a strict requirement for baptism prior to admission to the body of the church may have been occasioned or emphasized by the persecutions to which the early church was subject. Peter shows no such reluctance about baptizing the family of the centurion upon whom the Holy Spirit descends while he is still talking, and baptism in general — in the apostolic church — appears to be wholesale rather than retail. But with the beginnings of persecution, in the pre-Constantinian era, there was every reason for the church to be circumspect about admitting people to the assembly before they had been scrutinized and initiated. However, we are in a post-Constantinian era: marked by the increasing number of the unbaptized, but also without the persecution (in most places) that necessitates heightened scrutiny.

A perfect storm

Ironically, in recent years we appear to have made much more of baptism and preparation for it. While not eliminating infant baptism, we have clearly moved to emphasize the adult rite, and a period of preparation and formation worthy of the second century. We have also emphasized the communal nature of the rite, by placing it in the context of Sunday worship.

At the same time, the Episcopal Church in just the last half-century has transitioned from an era in which many congregations celebrated the Eucharist only twice a month. We have effectively eliminated (in most places) a public liturgy to which unbaptized persons were fully welcome (Morning Prayer), to one in which their full participation is restricted or proscribed — though not, I hasten to add, to the extent it was in the days of the persecuted and conciliar church: when the unbaptized either were not allowed into the assembly at all, or were dismissed before the prayers.

Where from here?

So it appears to me that the waters remain very muddy on this question. Although the tradition clearly urges against it, it is a tradition that is by no means without its peculiar twists and turns. I look forward to further exploration and disentanglement as we continue to do our best to discern what Christ would have us do.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

---

About Baptism

from a sermon on the Baptism of our Lord, 2009:

In baptism, God’s Spirit descends upon us and makes us heirs through faith — our own faith if we are old enough to possess it, and the faith of our parents and godparents if we are not yet old enough to possess a faith of our own. This wonderful gift is always new in each person, but it is also always a hand-me-down, it is a gift that is given through others, though it comes from God, given and received. Much as a new tree can only grow from a seed from an old tree, the new life in Christ through baptism always comes through those who are already baptized — the members of the church, which is the body of Christ at work in the world. This new life is a gift that is always given through those who have received it before.

And it becomes ours — a part of ourselves, a part of who we are as children of God who have a personal relationship with God, whom we can now call “our Father in heaven.” The love of God for each and all of us begins and grows in that special and holy relationship.

...

Ultimately, evangelism is the good stewardship of the Gospel: sharing that greatest gift, that wonderful presence. It is a gift we would never think of returning to the store, or stowing in the attic. It is a gift so wonderful, so perfect for each of us, the only gift of which it can truly be said, “one size fits all,” the gift that is older than time itself and yet is always new. It is the gift of salvation. God be praised, that we have, each and every one of us, such a wonderful gift to share, through Jesus Christ our Lord.+

---

Read or listen to it all, if you wish.

Tobias Haller BSG

A Review of Canonical and Rubrical Restrictions on Admission to Communion

Tobias S Haller BSG

Introductory Note

The purpose of this brief essay is not to forestall discussion of the administration of communion to those not [yet] baptized, but rather to provide some historical context and background to inform such discussion. Note as well that it is not within the scope of this review to examine the issue of excommunication or refusal of communion for disciplinary reasons. Nor is it intended to address the spiritual restrictions and requirements contained in some of the Prayer Book texts of exhortation and invitation (i.e., being in love and charity with one’s neighbors, intending to lead a new life, repenting one’s sins) since these are largely subjective, and not externally verifiable criteria, and therefore are ill suited to canonical regulation.

Scripture and the Early Church

Scripture itself provides no unambiguous or explicit guidance on the question of communion of the unbaptized. It might well be argued that the question never arose. However, baptism clearly plays an important and foundational role in the community which gathered around John the Baptist and later Jesus. It appears that baptism came to be understood by the apostolic church as an adaptation of Jewish ceremonies for conversion as a step towards (or substitute for) circumcision, which admitted one to the Passover meal (Exo 12:48). Given this understanding (not only for remission of sins or repentance, but as a sign of incorporation) baptism becomes significant in light of Paul’s declaration that Christ is “our Passover.” It is therefore understandable that the apostolic leaders believed that incorporation into Christ’s Body (the church) through Baptism enabled one to “keep the feast” which is the sacramental celebration of that Body.

Jesus’ own teaching presents a mixed witness: the harshness with which the man who shows up at the wedding banquet improperly attired is treated (Matt 22:12) stands in marked contrast to the apparent openness of his table fellowship with outcasts. On the other hand, the lack of any clear demarcation between such table fellowship and the more intimate gatherings of the apostolic band, as well as Paul’s apparent willingness to “give thanks and break bread” with unbelievers (Acts 27:35), appear to offer a conflicting message. So I confess that I can find no “plain teaching” on this subject in Scripture. (The “unworthy” or “improper” reception of the eucharist in 1 Cor 11 does not appear to have to do with baptism.)

There is, however, no doubt that by the patristic era church law and liturgy are abundantly clear on the matter of admission to communion. The liturgy of baptism itself included reception of communion as its climax. Nor was there any question of the unbaptized being so communed — they were not even allowed to remain after what we would now call the Liturgy of the Word. Communion — as well as offering communal prayer — was reserved for “the faithful” — that is, the baptized (seeDidache, and the Apostolic Constitutions). (One wonders if the legend of Saint Martin of Tours might not represent an early rebuke to an overemphasis on the restriction of participation in the Body of Christ to the baptized: Martin, still a catechumen, encounters the living Christ, and his act of charity in giving half his cloak is held as exemplary.)

Because many if not most were baptized as adults, early church laws assumed (and later required) preparation for baptism and the reception of communion which served as its culmination. This preparation involved a period of education (the catechumenate) and involved prayer and fasting, prior to subsequent participation in the church’s liturgy. Though fewer in number, those baptized as infants received communion at baptism, just as did adults.

Infant Baptism and Adult Confirmation

In the period between the fourth and fourteenth centuries, however, infant baptism became the rule rather than the exception. While the Eastern churches continued to commune infants, a changing theology of the eucharist in the West led to a gradual withdrawal of communion from infants, and admission to communion came to be restricted to those who had reached “the age of reason.” In addition, a separate rite of confirmation developed in the West, and in England this led to an additional change in the canonical regulation of admission to communion.

Many of the faithful apparently were not bringing their children for confirmation at the appropriate time. In order to encourage confirmation, the Council of Lambeth (1281), chaired by Archbishop Peckham, changed church law to require confirmation for admission to communion.

This injunction, not originally intended as a restriction on communion but as an incentive to confirmation, was later enshrined in the “Confirmation Rubric” of the first Book of Common Prayer (1549), where it appears at the end of the rite for Confirmation. “And there shall none be admitted to the Holy Communion until such time as he be confirmed.” In 1559, the rubric was expanded slightly: “And there shall none be admitted to the Holy Communion, until such time as he can say the catechism, and be confirmed.”

The 1662 version added an additional notice at the end of the baptismal rite: “It is expedient that every person, thus baptized, should be confirmed by the Bishop so soon after his Baptism as conveniently may be; that so he may be admitted to the holy Communion.” However, the 1662 Prayer Book softened the Confirmation Rubric itself, removing the requirement concerning the catechism, and adding at the end “or be ready and desirous to be confirmed.” This rubric accommodated those who were unable to be confirmed during the unsettled period of the English Civil War. It was retained in the first American Prayer Books where it met a similar pastoral need: there were no bishops in the colonial church, and many American church members were not confirmed, though presumably “ready and desirous” to be so. This phrase allowed for considerable pastoral flexibility even after confirmation became readily available throughout the Anglican Communion, and given this pastoral leeway, the rubric remained in versions of the Book of Common Prayer throughout the Communion.

At the same time, an increasing movement developed to recover the ancient custom of admitting children to communion at their baptism, even though limitation of communion to the confirmed (or those ready and desirous of confirmation) remained in the rubrics of the American Prayer Book. The House of Bishops issued a recommendation in 1971 that young children, after “being instructed in the meaning of this Sacrament,” might be admitted to communion in the context of worship with their family, before confirmation.

Beyond the Confirmation Boundary

Eventually the Confirmation Rubric was dropped altogether in the revision of 1976. With the adoption of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, restriction of communion to the confirmed was formally removed. There was, however, still some question if this change opened the door to infant communion, so in 1988, the House of Bishops adopted a resolution stating,

Whereas, the Church teaches that Holy Baptism is the sacrament by which God adopts us as children by grace, and makes us, at whatever age we are baptized, members of Christ’s Body, the Church; and

Whereas, the practice of the Church has evolved since previous statements by this House [in 1971 and1972] on the subject of communion by young children, so that a statement of the current mind of this House may be useful; therefore be it

Resolved, That the mind of the House of Bishops is that:

Those baptized in infancy may, as full members of the Body of Christ, begin receiving communion at any time they desire and their parents permit; and that the following pastoral principles are recommended to guide the church in communicating those baptized as infants:

1. That the reception of communion by young children should normally be in the context of their participation with their parents and other family in the liturgy of the church;

2. That instruction is required for adults and older children before their baptism and first communion; instruction is also essential for young children after they are baptized and have received communion in infancy, that they may grow in appreciation of the grace they have received and in their ability to respond in faith, love, and thankful commitment of their lives to God;

3. That pastoral sensitivity is always required: in not forcing the sacrament on an unwilling child, in not rejecting a baptized child who is reaching out for communion with God in Christ, and in respecting the position of the parents of a child in this regard; and

4. That the practice of some parishes which customarily give first communion to infants at their baptism, then next offer them communion when they and their parents express a desire that they receive, is seen to be an acceptable practice in the spirit of these guidelines; and be it further

Resolved, that the Committee on Theology be instructed to present a report on this matter to the next House of Bishops meeting.

It is therefore clear that the Episcopal Church now regards baptism as the sole canonical criterion for admission to communion, at least for persons who are members of the Episcopal Church or a church in communion with it.

Admission of Non-Episcopalians to Communion

However, a second issue that arises is the appropriateness of admitting non-Episcopalians to communion. This is not a novel question. Even in the time when the Confirmation Rubric was in effect, the prevailing opinion was that occasional communion by a baptized non-Anglican was not forbidden by the rubric.

As the Lambeth Conference of 1920 noted, the admission of baptized non-Anglicans to communion was a matter of essentially local pastoral discretion under the guidance of the bishop, and “the priest... has no canonical authority to refuse Communion to any baptized person kneeling before the Lord’s Table (unless he be excommunicate by name, or, in the canonical sense of the term, a cause of scandal to the faithful).” The Conference urged that if there was further question as to the propriety of such cases, “the priest should refer the matter to the Bishop for counsel or direction.” (Lambeth Conference 1920, Resolution 12.C.ii.)

The General Convention of 1967 adopted a resolution that permitted baptized non-Episcopalians (who had made public profession of faith in their own traditions) to receive communion in the Episcopal Church “where the discipline of their own Church permits, not only at special occasions of ecumenical gatherings” but whenever so moved by spiritual need. Similar to the Lambeth resolution of 1920, this action was not felt by the Convention to require any change in the canons or rubrics, the apparent tension with the Confirmation Rubric resolved by the fact that since the Episcopal Church at that time did not recognize any equivalent to Confirmation in many non-Episcopal churches, whether such a person could be considered “ready and desirous to be confirmed” was irrelevant. The primary intention of the legislation appears to have been a desire to discourage “what is commonly known as ‘Open Communion”’ — which is to say an open declaration that communion is open to all who are baptized, from whatever tradition. The emphasis here was on the discipline of the church of which the person was a member.

In 1979, the same year that formally made communion available to all who were baptized in the Episcopal Church, including infants, an expansion and clarification of the resolution of 1967 was adopted. While acknowledging the renewed understanding of Baptism as “the sacramental prerequisite for receiving Holy Communion,” and the centrality of the eucharist in the church’s new liturgical formularies, this resolution also expressed the need for “sensitivity to the constraints of conscience on those whose churches officially do not approve of this sacramental participation.” The resolution presented this standard “for those of other churches who on occasion desire to receive Holy Communion in the Episcopal Church”:

They shall have been baptized with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and shall have previously been admitted to the Holy Communion within the church to which they belong.

They shall examine their lives, repent of their sins, and be in love and charity with all people, as this church in its catechism (BCP p. 860) says is required of all those who come to the Eucharist.

They shall approach the Holy Communion as an expression of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ whose sacrifice once upon the cross was sufficient for all mankind.

They shall find in this Communion the means to strengthen their life within the Christian family ‘through the forgiveness of (their) sins, the strengthening of (their) union with Christ and one another, and the foretaste of the heavenly banquet...’ (BCP p. 859-60).

Their own consciences must always be respected as must the right of their own church membership to determine the sacramental discipline of those who, by their own choice, make that their spiritual home.”

The Episcopal Church since 1979 authorized “occasional communion” for baptized members of other Christian churches who are already admitted to Communion in their own churches, who meet the Episcopal Church’s own Prayer Book requirements for all who come to the Eucharist, and who are in basic agreement with the Episcopal Church’s own eucharistic doctrine. It emphasized, however, the individual right of conscience as well as respect for the sacramental disciplines of the other churches.

Many did not feel that the restrictions in this resolution were in keeping with the intent to clarify that Baptism is the sole criterion and means for membership in the universal church, and that all members of the universal church are eligible to share in the Holy Eucharist as an outward sign of that membership, and of the unity that transcends denominational limits. With the growing practice of infant communion the question arose as to the appropriateness of requiring a particular eucharistic doctrine of anyone receiving communion.

In 1982, therefore, the Standing Liturgical Commission brought to the General Convention a resolution amending the membership canon (at that time Canon I.16, now Canon I.17), in order “to bring the Canon into conformity with the concept of Christian initiation and Church membership implied” by the relevant sections of the Book of Common Prayer. The new canon marked a major change in the way membership in the church would be understood, and it also had implications governing admission to communion.

The opening section of the proposed canon recognized that “All persons who have received the Sacrament of Holy Baptism with water in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and whose baptisms have been duly recorded in this Church, are members thereof.” The closing section of the Canon read, “No person who has not received the Sacrament of Holy Baptism with water in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit shall be eligible to receive Holy Communion in this Church.”

The proposed resolution, and another similar to it, were referred to and amended by committee and came to the floor of the House of Bishops with two significant changes. The opening clause was clarified to read, “All persons who have received the Sacrament of Holy Baptism with water in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, whether in this Church or in another Christian Church, and whose Baptisms have been duly recorded in this Church, are members thereof.” The added phrase emphasizes the universal nature of baptism, transcending denominational divisions, and is in keeping with the Prayer Book’s affirmation that baptism “is full initiation... into Christ’s Body the Church.” The effect of this new canon was to clarify that baptism makes one a Christian, and that recording that baptism in the Episcopal Church makes one an Episcopalian.

The closing section of the canon was simplified: “No unbaptized person shall be eligible to receive Holy Communion in this Church.” The Bishop of Rio Grande moved to amend this clause by the addition of the word “regularly” at the end of the sentence. This amendment, which would have permitted occasional reception of the eucharist by one not baptized, was defeated. This canon clarifies that baptism, previously defined as to form and matter, whether performed in the Episcopal Church or another Christian church, is the sole canonical requirement for admission to communion.

Due to the substantial change in policy governing confirmation and membership, a final clause was added to the resolution, stating that the new canon would take effect on January 1, 1986, rather than on January 1, 1983, when all other canonical changes would normally take effect. Thus, by 1986, the Episcopal Church had canonically reestablished the ancient linkage between baptism and eucharist as sacraments of the universal church, stressing the former as prerequisite for admission to the latter, and that all who are members of the “People of God” are welcome to share in “the Gifts of God.”

The question arises as to what extent invitation to receive communion should be made, in addition to the exhortations and invitations already in the liturgical texts. While not wishing to invite a Christian of another tradition to disobey the rules of that tradition, neither should the Episcopal Church be placed in the position of enforcing someone else’s rules. This is particularly so when the persons’ presence at an Episcopal eucharist (in itself a possible breach of their denomination’s rules) may indicate a desire and need for pastoral care.

In addition, an increasing number of persons attending church services are not [yet] baptized. Some may innocently feel they are welcome to receive communion, since the liturgy itself does not specify baptism as a requirement for admission to communion, and appears to issue a number of invitations to all who are present. Therefore a brief announcement to the effect that “all who are baptized are welcome at the Lord’s table,” has become customary in many parishes, while a few others have boldly acted contrary to the canonical and rubrical limitations, and issue a general invitation to any moved to receive. Thus we come to the present debate on the advisability of such a change in policy and practice.

---

Further extensive analysis of the issues surrounding Confirmation, and Infant Communion may be found in Ruth A. Meyers, Continuing the Reformation: Re-Visioning Baptism in the Episcopal Church (New York: Church Publishing Incorporated, 1997). The Rev. Canon J. Robert Wright’s “Who May Receive Communion in the Episcopal Church”(Cincinnati: Forward Movement Publications, 1980) includes a detailed description of the background to the 1979 General Convention Resolution, and its implications for the church at that time.

---

Baptism, Communion / Laity and Lambeth

In the discussion of baptism before communion now before us, let’s not forget that for a long time confirmation was required in order to receive communion in the Episcopal Church. How that policy changed serves to illustrate the autonomy of provinces, in contrast with the role of Lambeth as a place for discussion rather than decision.

The order of receiving sacraments was altered in England long prior to the Reformation by Archbishop Peckham, who required confirmation of those who wished to be communicants. By a process of inheritance, the various national churches of the Anglican Communion retained this limitation (with some minor alteration to provide for those “ready and desirous” of Confirmation but unable to be confirmed due to a scarcity of bishops).

The peculiar practice of confirmed communion came into question in the last century, however, as interreligious dialogue and liturgical renewal reminded Anglicans worldwide of the anomalous character of this hallowed tradition, and discussion began in earnest to remove the “confirmation bar.” The Lambeth Conference of 1948, however, felt that such a change was “not desirable” and called for the retention of the traditional (for Anglicans, anyway) order of Baptism, Confirmation, and admission to Holy Communion. (Paragraph 103, section V.B.) By 1968, the Lambeth Conference was recommending that provinces “experiment” with permitting those baptized but not confirmed to receive communion. (Resolution 25). The 1978 Conference apparently lost interest in the subject, due to the more immediate concerns raised by the emergence of the ordination of women. In the meantime, the Episcopal Church had set in motion a complete repeal of the “confirmation ban” — not as an “experiment” but as a new practice. However, in 1988 (Res. 69) the Lambeth Conference was still not of one mind, and chose to refer the issue to the ACC.

The Disappearing Laity

One of the vexed questions before us is the authority of Lambeth itself. The Lambeth Conference itself seems to forget, and then recall, from time to time, its own nature as a consultative conference, and the important role the Laity (and for that matter, the Clergy) ought to play in forming Anglican tradition and theology.

Over the last decades there has been a focus upon the Bishops (note increased number of meetings of the House of Bishops in our own church) and Primates. I understand that these domestic meetings were in part efforts to “keep the peace” by bringing bishops of divergent opinion face to face in the hopes they would find it easier to get along if they spent more time in dialogue. I think this is an excellent idea, but I fear a by-product of these meetings is the feeling among those gathered that these episcopal sessions have greater authority than either canon or tradition warrants.

This shift is illustrated in two Lambeth resolutions from ten years apart. In 1968, Lambeth stated “The Conference recommends that no major issue in the life of the Church should be decided without the full participation of the laity in discussion and in decision.” (Resolution 24)

Yet in 1978 (Resolution 11) Lambeth said, “The Conference advises member Churches not to take action regarding issues which are of concern to the whole Anglican Communion without consultation with a Lambeth Conference or with the episcopate through the Primates Committee, and requests the primates to initiate a study of the nature of authority within the Anglican Communion.”

Now as long as “consultation” isn’t interpreted as “seeking permission” this is fine. In fact, on the matter of women’s ordination, the Conference was “consulted” and the Primates “studied” the matter — but neither the consultation nor the study prevented (or was thought capable of preventing) the individual provinces from moving forward as they saw fit (to accept or reject this development).

A note on patience...

Patience does not imply inaction, nor is it reasonable to require absolute unanimity before a change is made in a given practice. (This is simply the way the church works, historically. As Newman pointed out many years ago in his essay on the development of doctrine, the Vincentian Canon is a kind of “legal fiction” since there have always been at least some who have rejected even the seemingly most basic credenda).

For us Anglicans, the dynamic of authority in the communion has been and is best worked out when each unit of the communion (with laity, clergy and bishops working together or in their separate orders) exercises its decision-making capability for the matters that it is competent (in accord with canon and tradition) to decide, even if those decisions may lead to a situation in which all things are not “in all places the same.” This is particularly true in questions of “rites and ceremonies” — which includes (and was believed by the framers of Anglicanism’s foundation documents to include) marriage and ordination.

 

---