The Sacrament of Last Supper by Salvador Dali, 1955.
Some restaurants require reservations and it's not really possible to just show up and get a table. But is that a fitting metaphor for Eucharist? This is a blog post I've been considering for a while, but given that General Convention is now discussing the topic of Open vs. Closed Communion, as presented in Resolution C040, it seems to be the day to post it. This resolution would replace the current Prayer Book rubric that states that "no unbaptized person shall be eligible to receive Holy Communion in this Church" with the language "to invite all, regardless of age, denomination, or baptism to the altar for Holy Communion."
Here is a brief sketch of each side of the debate. It is also worth noting that sometimes the via media (or middle way) isn't a clear option because of the nature of some items. Open or Closed Communion is not a continuum, nor does anyone really advocate for receiving only the bread, but not the wine, as a compromise. This is one of those situations in which side must be chosen.
Open Communion-
The argument here centers around inclusion and hospitality. People will say "Jesus welcomed all to his table, so should we;" "this table does not belong to the Episcopal Church, but to God, and all are welcome at God's table." Terms such as "radical welcome" are used. Scripturally, proponents point to stories of the wedding banquet (Mt 22/Lk 14), all things being called clean (Acts 10), or examples where Jesus preaches inclusivity (ALL ye who are weary...Mt 11:28). This side points out that Jesus had table-fellowship with people from all walks of life and did not administer a litmus test before doing so. "Hospitality" is a common word found on this side. They will also point out that "these are the gifts of God for the people of God" noting that all are the people of God.
Closed Communion-
This side focuses has several valid points to make as well. One is history and the fact that it is the historical position of the Church. This side will also talk about the distinction between table-fellowship and the Last Supper, pointing out that the sacred meal on which Eucharist takes its roots was not "open," only the disciples were there. They will also talk about hospitality, and make a rather interesting point with it. They will use the metaphor of teaching a man to fish, saying that if you give a hungry person a fish, they eat for a day and are filled; but if you teach them to fish, they can be filled for a life time. They say that the true act of hospitality is to welcome people into the Body of Christ through Baptism. They will speak of our modern desire for "gotta have it now," and our impatience and quickness to cry out "not fair." From the Bible, in addition to the Last Supper, they cite passages such as the Great Commission (Mt 28:19) that place the emphasis of evangelism and mission on Baptism. Watering down the Sacraments (both Baptism and Eucharist) is said to be a concern of this camp if Open Communion were to be practiced. Finally, they would agree that Eucharist is the "gifts of God for the people of God," but would say that while all people are God's children (ie, the world), not everyone is the people of God (Israel vs the other nations).
Before I share my thoughts on the matter, take a moment and consider your own opinion. Where do you fall on the issue? Are my above summaries lacking? What would you add or change?
I began as an advocate for Open Communion, but have shifted to keeping Communion reserved for the Baptized. Open Communion has some very compelling arguments, and many thoughtful, compassionate, and learned Christians land here. However, I believe that these reasons are deficient for a few reasons:
1) It is important to stand for what you believe. The notions of "welcome" and "hospitality," while being wonderful and loving acts of the Christian life, can also erode genuine faith. We all stand for something (whether it's the DH in baseball, slaw on bbq, or the divinity of Jesus, we all have points on which we are unwilling to budge) and there is nothing wrong or shameful about having boundaries. As the Very Rev. Ian Markham writes "there are voices that want to advocate an unthinking vision of Eucharistic hospitality, which would result in the madness of inviting a Muslim who does not even believe that Jesus died on the cross to a table that remembers our Lord’s death... there are plenty of voices who want to exclude in the name of inclusion."
Pluralistic theology (where there is no inside or outside) is a slippery slope and is rather un-Incarnational. "If we stand for nothing, we will fall for anything" (Alexander Hamilton). To be a Christian is to hold certain truths and to live them out. Again, there is nothing wrong with saying that Baptism precedes Eucharist.
3) Other Sacraments requires a discernment/learning/preparation experience (Ordination, Baptism, Confirmation, Marriage, Reconciliation). Would Baptize a non-Christian just because they asked for it? Would we ordain a Muslim to be welcoming? Would we marry a Jewish couple in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Probably not. So why would we consider giving Eucharist to them?
4) Eucharistic theology is so deep and rich that to give it to anyone who would take it is to diminish and ignore that depth of meaning. This isn't to say that you need to be a liturgical scholar to receive Eucharist, but to simply hand it out without discretion is to reduce its meaning.
5) There is much theology around the ability to receive Eucharist without actually partaking in it (consider hospital patients who cannot take food/drink by mouth). The "highlight" of the Sunday service is the great AMEN that follows the Eucharistic Prayer, and this is the work of the people. Baptized and unbaptized can say it, and all are able to take part in the liturgy. I would not suggest that the unbaptized should be removed from the church before Communion starts (as was the practice in the early Church). All may participate in the celebration of the Eucharist- but the receiving of Eucharist if for members of the Body of Christ who receives bread which is the Body of Christ. Furthermore, anyone may come to the altar for a blessing.
6) The Sacrament actually does belong to the Church, at least in a sense. The Church is the steward of the Sacraments. God's grace is for all and is given to all, but the Sacraments fall under the auspices of the Church. For God, all things may be possible, but without the Church I'm not sure how the Eucharist would be celebrated. Yes, metaphorically it can happen around shared meals, but I'm talking about the actual Sacrament. So if the Church oversees and administers the Sacrament, it makes sense that the Sacraments are for the Church and fall within the confines of the Church.
7) Eucharist is not the only vehicle for God's grace, love, forgiveness, or Kingdom. It is one vehicle for the Baptized, and there are others. There are also other vehicles for the non-Baptized. We can even break bread with one another and have table fellowship and love feasts (agape), but again when we break the Body of Christ as the Sacrament, it is for the Body of Christ. To close Eucharist is not to send people out with "weeping and gnashing of teeth."
8) History is important. If the Spirit is indeed calling us to a new understanding of Eucharist, let's give it a generation to see if we still can discern the same new truth in 20 years. There is no need to change the rubric so quickly. Closed Communion is not discrimination, there are no victims, so this is not like same-sex marriage in which there are actual instances of hurt and exclusion. Let's take our time and see if the Spirit is blowing, or are we just spouting the hot-air of modernity?
9) There are compelling arguments for Open Communion, such as powerful stories of unbaptized people taking Communion and feeling God's grace. But as lawyers will say, "hard cases make bad law." If such an experience is so powerful, what does it mean? And how much more would full-initiation mean? Heaven might have Open Communion, but I think it's safe to say that everyone there is also fully on-board with God (whatever God fully is) and there are no debates around theology. It's not really a fair comparison. Our goal is not to make this world Heaven, but rather it is to make this world reflect Heaven. To make our world Heaven is to create an idol- the idol of perfection.
10) It's the Prayer Book rubric, and I need good reasons to break a Prayer Book rubric. I will and do bend certain rubrics; but not all rubrics are created equal, and not all have impacts as significant as this one. Now bending and breaking might sound like a fine line, and it is. However, I am not persuaded by arguments for Open Communion to the point that I'd disregard history and tradition.
For fuller and more academic reasons for Closed Communion, see this article.
Regardless of where you stand on the issue, I look forward to the time when all of Creation will gather at the heavenly banquet. But in the meantime, I am thankful for the opportunity to discuss how best to invite all people to participate in the grace of God.
Agree? Disagree? Questions? Thoughts? Be sure to check comments too!
