Open Communion? Not Yet

By Fr. Joseph Neiman

 [published in The Living Church, January 13, 2008]

The arrival of the Christmas season found a growing number of congregations welcoming all to Holy Communion, whether baptized or not, whether nominally Christian or persons of another faith. It is called “open communion” and extends sincere hospitality. Is this practice acceptable?

The immediate answer is “No,” but perhaps it would be better to say, “Not yet!” There are many questions and issues to address before this could become an acceptable practice in the Episcopal Church and not simply a sincere or misguided fad.

First the Canons of the Episcopal Church (Title I,17.7) state: “No unbaptized person shall be eligible to receive Holy Communion in this Church.” Resolution 43 of the 1979 and Resolution D084 of the 2006 General Conventions reaffirmed this traditional statement. The later did, however, asked for further study into “the relationship between Holy Baptism and Eucharistic practice.” Furthermore Resolution 45 of the 1968 Lambeth Conference affirmed the same traditional practice.

This immediately raises a question whether a priest with or without the consent of a particular congregation can decide this canon is voluntary. All clergy before ordination affirm they will “conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church” (Constitution of the Episcopal Church, Article VIII). Open communion at this time is not part of these.

Secondly the New Testament is not clear concerning whether Jesus baptized or not (John 3:22; 4:1-2), and yet Matthew’s Gospel closes with the Great Commission quoting Jesus telling the eleven to make disciples of all nations “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19).

Certainly there is a difference in the Gospels between Jesus’ relationship to the crowds, the disciples, and the Twelve. We see this in the explanation of the parables after they had been shared with the crowd (e.g. Lk 8:4-15). Recent biblical exegesis and studies related to the quest for the historical Jesus have given the Church many new insights to digest, but there is not unanimity in many questions nor in their relationship to current liturgical practice or church order. 

The Acts of the Apostles have several baptismal incidents and they represent a range of means and formulas yet clearly they infer that baptism was common practice from earliest days. It appears that following the Pentecost speech of Peter many were baptized, and then we are told how they lived together faithful to “the breaking of bread” (Acts 2:41-42). Paul was baptized by Ananias following his conversion experience on the road to Damascus. Subsequently Paul preached about giving up one way of life and becoming bonded to Christ (e.g. 1 Cor 6:11; Gal 5; Eph 4 & 5).

The best that can be said in fairness is there is no certain pattern in the New Testament stating clearly that one must be baptized before receiving Holy Communion, yet Baptism is assumed and seen as necessary for a change in life. It would seem that such change is necessary before taking part in the Lord’s Supper unworthily (1 Cor 11:17-34). This sense is incorporated in the Exhortation in the Book of Common Prayer (p. 316), in the Catechism (p. 860), and in the Disciplinary Rubrics for the Eucharist (p. 409).

Some who advocate open communion cite the Gospel witness that Jesus ate and drank with sinners (Mark 2:15-17) and from this derive the importance of open communion for all who come to the table of the Lord. The research in recent decades as part of the quest for the historical Jesus, particularly John Dominic Crossan, strongly emphasizes “commensality” or the shared communal meal as essential to the ministry of Jesus. Yet it is extremely difficult to take what appears to be a New Testament practice of Jesus and import that into the 21^st century. Much of church life today would fade away, including the ordained clergy, the parish, the diocese and some of the sacramental rites – none of which were part of the life of the disciples of Jesus.

What was it that led the early church to develop the link between Baptism and Eucharist? In the Preface for the First Book of Common Prayer, Thomas Cranmer stresses the importance of the “decent order of the ancient fathers” concerning church practice. Clearly the early Church linked Baptism before Eucharist. In the Didache, written perhaps at the end of the first or beginning of the second century, the author states boldly: “You must not let anyone eat of drink of your Eucharist except those baptized in the Lord’s name (Did 9:5). A survey of early church fathers, including Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Chrysostom, Augustine, and many others would establish this link.

Communicating unbaptized persons is contrary to the practice of the church from earliest times to now. What have we learned about Baptism and Eucharist in this century that warrants a change? Richard Hooker has argued in the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity that we should not make changes in ancient practices, such as the forms of the ministry, without substantive theological and liturgical reasons.

When we state in our Catechism that there is an “inward and spiritual grace in Baptism” (BCP p. 858), are we speaking of just an historical moment in the life of an individual or a family, or is there is difference between a baptized person and a unbaptized person? Through the centuries Christians have spoken of the unrepeatable nature of Baptism, the indelible mark on the soul, the giving of the Holy Spirit, the forgiveness of sins – are these just words or is there a reality behind them?

The traditional sequence in Christian life was stated: “renounce Satan, repent of our sins, and accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior” (BCP p. 858). Then we come to the table not “for solace only” but for “strength” and not for “pardon only” but for renewal. Baptism leads us to Eucharist which leads us to service in Christ’s mission and ministry in the world. How does radical hospitality develop this pattern, this change of life?

It is only recently that the Episcopal Church dropped the requirement of Confirmation before Holy Communion. Both this change and the development of the catechumenate resulted from renewed appreciation of Baptism as full entrance into the church. What can we say now about the relationship of Baptism to Eucharist and what this might mean for the reception of Holy Communion. Much discernment needs to be done before open communion is an acceptable change in eucharistic practice in the Episcopal Church.