Rethinking "Reservations Required?"

Disputation of the Holy Sacrament - Raphael, 1510

Nearly two years ago I wrote a post called "Reservations Required?" about the debate around open and closed Communion. In it, I briefly summarized the straw man argument for each side and shared by own rationale for preferring a closed Communion (meaning only baptized Christians should receive Eucharist). That was 2012 and since then, the debate has not been settled and I have heard of more and more parishes opting to make statements such as "all people are welcome to receive Communion." I have even heard of some parishes that have become known as "open Communion parishes," in a way that strikes me as exclusive rather than inclusive, as in "we are enlightened and hospitable, and if you disagree, then you must be neither of those things."

And I honestly wondered, am I being oblivious to the movements of the Spirit? Are there strong arguments for open Communion? I know a lot of intelligent people that support the idea of open Communion, I had just not heard of a compelling argument for that position. So I decided to log onto to a religious database and search for articles on every side of the issue. I ended up find ten articles on the topic.

On the Open Communion side, I found these statements compelling:

• While I don't like the argument being made to the lowest-common-denominator: "baptized Christians don't naturally come to communion because they are so very dedicated and faithful, but because they are not."
• Citing examples of the Spirit moving the Church in new directions, such as receiving Gentiles into the early Church.
• References to the Eucharist as, in the words of John Wesley, "a converting sacrament."

On the Closed Communion side, I found these statements compelling:

• Regarding profound testimonies of being moved by the Eucharist to seek Baptism- "as the lawyers say, hard cases make bad law."
• "You cannot receive the Body of Christ unless you are already part of that same Body. This is not exclusive or elitist or inhospitable, it is simply what it means to partake of the Body and Blood of Christ in Holy Communion."
• Given the ancient sequence of font to table- "inviting the unbaptized to receive is not wrong so much as incoherent."
• "The whole idea that Jesus practiced radical hospitality is a modern ecclesial myth. Jesus was radically open to the hospitality of others, but he also placed radical demands on those who wished to follow him."
• "Does our announcement that 'all are welcome at the table' substitute for compelling witness of formation demanded by the catechumenate? Congratulating ourselves for our eucharistic hospitality to those who manage to find their way through our doors is much easier than being a visible church engaged in public discourse..."

I found the arguments for open Communion to be lacking in substance and logic, but full of love and welcome; while the arguments for closed Communion are well founded in Scripture, reason, and tradition, but I understand why this side can be misinterpreted as being inhospitable. 

The question I found myself pondering was- in good conscience, could I ever stand in front of a congregation that expects me to say "all are welcome to receive the Eucharist" and do so with integrity? And I realized that in all of my research on the topic, not a single article ever talks about what Eucharist is. That is what is missing from this conversation. What exactly is going on at the Table? Here are very brief summaries of many of the possible ranges of interpretation:

• Real presence: Christ is made present in the celebration of the Eucharist, not simply in the elements, but rather that Christ is truly present.
• Transubstantiation: The bread and wine are fundamentally changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
• Consubstantiation: The substance of the elements remain, but Christ's substance is also found within the sanctified bread and wine. Sometimes called impanation. 
• Sacramental union: Avoids the "technicalities" and focuses on Eucharist's union with Christ. It is essentially the "real presence" position, just a bit more vague on details.
• Pneumatic presence: Only the faithful actually receive the Body and Blood of Christ, as opposed to simply receiving bread and wine.
• Memorialism: Bread and wine are symbolic of Jesus' Body and Blood and the Eucharist commemorates the sacrificial death of Christ, and Christ is generally not assumed to be present in any metaphysical way.
• Transignification: Though Christ's actual Body and Blood may not be in the bread and wine, they are objectively so transformed and so the full significance of Christ's Body and Blood become sacramentally present. This comes from an attempt to take Transubstantiation and make it better fit with modern scientific understandings.

So when I pondered that question above, I realized that one's definition of Eucharist greatly changes the answer. If Memorialism is it, then sign me up for open Communion. Pneumatic presence seems to have the solution built into its definition. But if we're talking anything Sacramental, such as real presence, transubstantiation, or transignification, then I'm not so sure that I can overlook the rubric which I have vowed to keep - "no unbaptized person shall be eligible to receive Holy Communion in this Church" (Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church I.17.7). 

Though people can make compelling arguments for and against any of the above "theories" of the Eucharist, we can never know which is the truest or where their truths may intersect. And therefore, it is rather difficult to say that there is only one valid approach to the Eucharist (open or closed). I tend to prefer clarity in positions, but after reflection, I'm not sure that (this side of Heaven) we can have as much as we'd like. This is the "messiness" (and grandeur) of the Anglican position of via media. I tend to value a more Sacramental view of the Eucharist, so that will affect my understanding of the debate around closed and open Communion.

So I've changed my position- I'd now be fully comfortable saying that I support open Communion, while also favoring closed Eucharist (the difference being the interpretation). If I'm wrong, I ask for the Lord's forgiveness and pray that whatever the case may be, that I am enabling people to, in the words of St. Augustine, "behold what you are, and become what you receive."