Father Jake is having a discussion about "open communion" on his site. The comments are growing fast.
He's responding to a new book by Sara Miles, a deacon [corrected] who found her way to baptism through the sacrament of the altar (hmm...someone gave a sermon along those lines not to long ago...).
As much as I support and love our open table, I sometimes worry that the "orthodox" will misunderstand what we are doing. I have seen posts on blogs by conservatives to the effect of "well...maybe I'll accept gays in church if I have to...but those "open communion" folks just simply have to go!!" Sad thing is, I see many progressives follow suit and use it as a way of finding common ground with conservatives.
...which puts us in an odd place. I do think we need to hold the open table--but I think we need to be prepared to defend it from the grounds of scripture, reason, and tradition. I think we can. But, I do think we need to be careful not to frame it in a way that portrays it as "unorthodox." I think we're solidly in tradition. We don't, after all, call it "open communion." It's the open table--baptism (or at least its seed) is in there somewhere, I think. More importantly, I think we need to call attention to the table-to-font narratives of people like Sara Miles.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I would agree that people need to be aware of a larger definition--I have had a few people ask me what an open table implies, and when I explain it, I try to emphasize that it is important to be baptized before receiving, and receiving is not just a simple decision to make, but I am not sure that the church explains this well enough. Obviously, we face a lot of scrutiny from the fundamental groups, but greater communication could go a long way.
First, I just want to point out that Sara Miles is not a priest, though it does appear that she is a deacon at St. Gregory of Nyssa in San Francisco, which I should mention is a very interesting example of an emerging church in the Episcopal tradition.
I also agree that it is important that we both understand and express well what we mean by having an “open table,” especially at St. Stephen’s. Because the term and idea are thrown around so much at St. Stephen’s without any regular, deeper discussions of why we do it (especially considering it goes against the canons of the Episcopal Church), I personally made a point a number of “offering plate” sermons ago to ask why we do it if baptism is supposed to be a requirement for communion. And it did happen to get picked and answered by George a bit more deeply than the usual “because Jesus welcomed all to the table.”
The two biggest points against “open communion” are that it goes against the canons of the Church and that it doesn’t require baptism, which is understood by many to be the initiation rite for which communion is supposed to be the completion. While these both seem to be good reasons, they can both be rendered less important if one changes the underlying assumptions that make them relevant. If one assumes that the reason the canons disallow “open communion” is because communion is supposed to be understood and practiced in light of baptism as the initiation rite into the body of the Church, then if one is able to adequately argue against this understanding, this canon becomes of less relevance. One can possibly argue against the understanding of the relationship between baptism and communion, such that communion doesn’t need baptism as a requirement. There are some who believe that having baptism come after communion makes just as much sense. The story that Sara tells in her book of her own initiation and conversion makes a good case for this. In either case, however, it is important that one understand the significance of these sacraments for themselves personally and in the context of the Church.
In the end, it is important to take none of this lightly. The belief and doctrines of the Episcopal Church at this time regard baptism as a requirement for communion, and the Church is not ready at this point to change its understanding of this. Until such a time as the Church changes its understanding, it seems rather disobedient (and a tad self-righteous) to offer “open communion.” And as someone exploring the call to the priesthood, I’m not sure how I feel about disobedience. (Granted, obedience to the Church’s canons has never stopped anyone before.)
As far as how “open table” is different from “open communion,” I’m not sure there really is much of a difference. I’ve never gotten a sense at St. Stephen’s for how “open table” incorporates the need/requirement for baptism. I always thought that "open table" was just how St. Stephen's personalized the idea of "open communion," but I am interested if others find the two to be different.
Great points, Josh and Brian!
I agree with Josh that Baptism remains as central to the Christian life as the Eucharist, and, furthermore, in response to Brian's point about the sacramental objection to "open communion," that the two are inextricably connected.
The question for me, then, is how and when sacraments work. Sacraments in the catholic tradition are defined as "outward and visible signs of inward, spiritual grace." As a lover of liturgy, I really value the outward sign; however, I also see the inward part operating before, through, and after that outward sacramental event.
The example I'm thinking of is my marriage to Katie last year. We had a growing sense as we approached the event that we were moving toward a completion of the sacrament. In some sense, we were already married--the event itself heightened that sense and ultimately strengthened it, but the kernel was there as we prepared for the sacrament. Katie joked afterwards that she didn't feel any different (which of course she ultimately did--she said the same thing about something as stupendous as buying a house; it's just that our understanding of big life changes usually don't happen automatically--we grow into them).
In other words, the inner bit of a sacrament is working long before and after the outward bit. The outward bit is really important, but it isn't the thing itself. That is why I think the open table still values baptism as central--because I think someone who is moved to come to the table feels the inward movement toward the font, drawn by the pull of the table.
It is in this same way that I consider many of the gay couples I know to be married in truth, even if they have not had the right to acknowledge that sacrament before the church. Their unions are acknowledged before God inwardly--and outwardly in their living, if not liturgically.
I didn't answer Brian's point about the canonical issue--I've already gone too long here. Perhaps another time--but suffice it to say that I agree with you. Obedience is important. But of course...St. Stephen's has never kept the table open in defiance of a bishop, and I don't think we ever would.
More from Father Jake on Sarah Miles:
http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/2007/06/sara-miles-service-is-thanksgiving.html
Jake explores a ministry Sarah took up from her conversion: starting a food pantry from St. Gregory. He also talks about his own hunger as a homeless teen.
Post a Comment