Diana Butler Bass on churches and an open table.
https://dianabutlerbass.substack.com/p/sunday-musings-e21?utm_source=email&s=r
"This week, I got in a bit of trouble for a tweet:
ALL PEOPLE ARE GOD’S PEOPLE
The
tweet was occasioned by a resolution facing the Episcopal Church at its
upcoming national meeting. At issue is the question of open communion (or open table),
whether the meal of sharing bread and wine is for only baptized
Christians or for anyone wishing to participate. A group of theologians
wrote a letter on the question that included this line: “Holy Eucharist
is therefore not intended for ‘all people’ without exception, but is
rather for ‘God’s people.’”
And that’s when I hastily — and passionately — posted the tweet:
All
people ARE God’s people. Start your theology there. Start every
theology there for God’s sake. For the sake of humanity. For the sake of
the planet.
Churches make rules about rituals and
practices — what actions are exclusive within communities of initiation
and participation. I get it. That’s just what religious institutions do.
While I object to the particular boundaries this letter puts around
communion, that wasn’t what most deeply worried me.
What upset me was the distinction between “all people” and “God’s people.” How easily it was made, how assumed it was. Them and us.
The great unwashed of humanity versus the special people of our inner
circle. The people who aren’t invited and those of us who are. Outsiders
and insiders. The unsaved, the saved.
The kind of
distinction that has been the source of Christianity’s worst moments,
most violent episodes — drawing a line between “all people” and “God’s
people.”
Pentecost is sometimes called the “birthday of the
church.” A great wind howls from the skies, flames blaze above the heads
of Jesus’s followers, and a huge crowd hears the Word of God in their
own languages.
But it is the birth of something much bigger
— the birth of a new humanity, a new creation. “In the last days,” God
declares, “I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh.”
All flesh. Not
just some people. Literally, in Greek, “the whole of human nature” or
“every physical body.” Pentecost is a story of the world’s baptism in
holy fire. In it, you hear echoes of a more ancient tale — God appearing
to Moses in a burning bush on holy ground:.....
At
Pentecost, the wind drives fire on the crowd, across the world, and
through the cosmos. God’s breath remakes the universe, restores the
oneness of all creation, and births a new humanity. All ground is
scorched with holiness, all bodies soaked with the Spirit. All. All.
All.
All people are God’s people. All people. The Spirit
didn’t discriminate. The Spirit didn’t draw distinctions. Pentecost
doesn’t birth a church. It isn’t the birth of the
Church. Pentecost is the extension of the holiest of all moments — the
naming of the One who sets the cosmos ablaze — in conversation with us,
on this ground.
With flames still licking their brows, someone in that cacophonous gathering might have cried out words that became their baptismal creed: “For
you are all children of God in the Spirit! There is no Jew or Greek;
there is no slave or free; there is no male and female. For you are all
one in the Spirit!” Some formed a new community devoted to
solidarity and sharing where they held all things in common, gave to all
who had need, spent hours in the temple, and broke bread with gladness
and generosity. A new humanity. They wouldn’t be called “Christians” for
many years to come. They were simply followers. People of the Way.
Imitating a crucified Jewish rabbi named Jesus whom they experienced as
fully alive.
For many years, I lived in California. I
understand fire. I’ve been evacuated because of fire. It is frightening,
overwhelming, and it destroys. On that day so long ago, the wind blew, a
fire came — and it consumed division, bigotry, selfishness, injustice,
and ingratitude.
But it also created. And that’s Pentecost: the fire of creation. New creation.
In Romans, Paul affirms that all who are led by this vision — by the Spirit of God — are children of God. All.
All
people ARE God’s people. Start your theology there. Start every
theology there for God’s sake. For the sake of humanity. For the sake of
the planet."
Growing up in California, in a forest in fire country, I am personally familiar with the devastation of fire. The power it has to destroy. But I also know from personal experience that new life comes from it.
The fire of Pentecost- perhaps Pentecost was meant to destroy the divisions, destroy the tribalism of humanity. But instead new tribes were formed. Will it ever change?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBass is correct that all people--all creation--is God's, and God loves it all.
ReplyDeleteIt makes more sense to me that Communion is for people who choose to worship God by following Jesus Christ.
Do I think the world will fall apart if the "wrong" people receive? No. But I don't know what good a sacrament does anybody who doesn't understand it or believe in the essentials of the faith as per the Creed.
Very powerful piece by Diana Butler Bass. I agree with her that "All people are God's people". Because who else's would they be? He created them. I have always felt about open or closed Communion, that if guests came to my house at mealtime, I would never ask them to sit on the couch and watch us eat. We would share what we had.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that it should be intentional on the part of the guest, that they want to be there, that they have enough faith to believe that the "bread that we break is a sharing in Christ's body". And that no one has the right to be the " conscience patrol". The statement is made in scripture that the person who eats and drinks of the Lord's supper unworthily does so to their own condemnation. That means it's on them, not on the church ladies or the hierarchy or anyone else, to discern if there are issues in their lives that need to be set right before they approach the sacrament.
One thing I find puzzling are the people who think they have to defend the Sacrament from those who might not be properly disposed. God is capable of taking care of himself.
DeleteI also believe that it should be intentional on the part of the guest, that they want to be there, that they have enough faith to believe that the "bread that we break is a sharing in Christ’s body”
DeleteExactly what do you mean by this? That they must believe in transsubstantiation.
Transubstantiation as a word didn't come up until the time of the medieval scholastics . The real presence is a mystery. Every time we try to nail it down we probably get into heresy. It's my understanding that the Episcopalians and Anglicans have a similar belief without calling it that. And the Lutherans, at least the LCMS, believe that it becomes the Body and Blood of Christ when they receive it. Do I believe that the reserved sacrament is the Body and Blood of Christ? I do ; I have kept a weekly hour of adoration for 23 years. But I don't insist that everyone who receives the sacrament understands it in exactly the same way I do.
DeleteA fellow convert once tried to mansplain the difference between the Anglican Real Presence and Catholic transubstantiation until my head hurt and I wanted to go back to the Unitarians.
DeleteKatherine, Doesn’t “becomes the body and blood of Christ” translate to “transsubstantiation”? That the wine is blood and just appears to be wine? And the bread is flesh that just has the visible properties of bread?
DeleteWell, yeah, that is what I believe. But I don't insist that everyone has to understand it the same way.
DeleteThere is a good article on the America site dealing with the Eucharist: https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2022/05/31/communion-eucharist-ban-deny-243068?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=21681&pnespid=tbJtCT5db7sU1PTKpia3C8yL5QKtWsZncumuz_B0vBRmYjveUfQ2NijkLAvGI8ULBYnP_7uF
DeleteKatherine, a requirement that communion be limited to those who believe in transsubstantiation, as you suggest, means that not only are non- Catholics or non- Christians banned, but even a majority of Catholics. This is obviously a contradiction to the premise that ALL God’s people should be welcome to the table, which is the point the author makes - that ALL should be welcome to the table - that ALL people are God’s people.
DeleteI think it entirely possible that it may be God who draws people who aren’t even active christians to come to God’s table (not man’s table). Perhaps God, the Spirit, acts in a person by first inviting him or her to come to the table, taste and see, and maybe come back again so that we can get to know you better, and you us. But if they come to mass or an Episcopalian liturgy and are told to stay back, stay in the pew - you are NOT one of us, so there is no room for you at the table, God may consider you to be one of God’s people, but we don’t.
Anne, my belief is a more nuanced than you are giving me credit for. I am not advocating that Communion be limited to those who believe in transubstantiation. But I am saying that it's not going to do someone any good who doesn't have at least some faith in Jesus Christ and have some consciousness that it's not just ordinary bread and wine.
DeleteBut Katherine, you don’t actually know this - that it won’t do “any good”. It’s something you believe. But, as the saying goes, God works in mysterious ways. If an unbeliever, or doubter, goes to communion - perhaps just out of curiosity - it hurts no one.. It certainly doesn’t hurt God! So why not welcome all to the table? It doesn’t hurt and there is a chance it might help the person in ways that nobody but God, and the person, ever know. Banning someone from what Christians claim is the meal Jesus himself invited us to seems just another way to be “exclusive”, tribal. It’s putting humans in control instead of getting out of the way and letting God be in control., The church can make its rules, as do all human institutions. The church is human, but maybe it needs to emulate Jesus a bit more than it does. More God, less man. Francis seems to try to follow Jesus as much as he can. But he’s a bit hamstrung by the encrusted weight of 1700 years of human interpretations of the gospels that have taken most of Christianity so far from what Jesus taught.
DeleteThe RCC teaches that the “main” channel available to receive God’s grace is through the RC sacraments. But God’s grace is everywhere. It’s there for everyone, and I’m sure billions of people benefit from it even though they may not understand it. God is not stingy with grace - it’s a gift for all. What sacramental participation can do, sometimes, is simply raise one’s consciousness to awareness of the grace that is a gift to us. Once one learns to become aware of the grace that surrounds us, perhaps by sacramental participation, then one often becomes aware of being surrounded by grace all the time - in the very air we breathe, in the warm sun, in the icy beauty of a frozen landscape. God’s grace is so obviously present in all of those situations in nature that the institutional religious scoff at when the SBNR tell them that they see God everywhere, especially in God’s creation - both human and in the natural world. God’s grace doesn’t come to us in octane grades. Ordinary grace (surrounding us everywhere at all times), plus grace (sacraments) and premium grace (the Eucharist). All of God’s grace is “premium”.
DeleteAnne suggests that unbelievers might have some kind of epiphany if they are allowed to take Communion. I suppose it's possible.
DeleteBut coming from a family of unbelievers, I can tell you that if nothing happens for them at Communion, they will loudly proclaim to everyone they know that it all just amounts to superstitious humbug, didn't feel a thing. I really don't want to think of the sacrament used in this type of reverse proselytizing.
As kids, when we showed interest in our Catholic friends' First Communions, my mother gave my brother and me some grape juice and a cracker and then made the sign of the cross over us. Then she asked us, "There, do you feel holy now?"
It was quite upsetting.
At least that is what I believe. When I was young I was (almost) a purely orthodox Catholic, accepting everything the church taught (except infallibility and no salvation outside the church. Rejected those in 4th grade). But my understandings changed over the years, evolved to the point where I left active church participation. I had a strong foundation, but I could see gaping cracks in the foundation as it as given to me. For others, it remains solid. God leads each of us on a unique path. So if God leads a non- believer to share the Eucharistic meal, who are we to decide that’s wrong?
DeleteEach of us comes to our own set of beliefs after decades of living. Education, knowledge, life experience, personality combine, and none of us knows - we simply believe what has been revealed to us through our life experiences. Adoration introduces people to the power of sitting in silence, to hearing God’s voice in the silence. But the prayer of silence can be prayed almost anywhere - maybe not in a playground though. ;)
If we ask the question “what would Jesus do”, it seems very difficult to reconcile the beliefs and practices of various Christian denominations with the Jesus who was known for sharing table fellowship with sinners. Indeed, most of the churches seem much more like the Pharisees who were known for their rules and regulations.
ReplyDeleteAlso, most Christian denominations are heavily into beliefs when Jesus and the Pharisees were mainly concerned with practices. It does not seem that Jesus was particularly concerned about beliefs as criteria for getting into the Kingdom. In Matthew he says that beliefs are not relevant. At the last judgment it does not matter whether you recognize Jesus in the poor and needy, it only matters whether you fed the hungry, etc.
In regard to the Eucharist, for now over two years I have not been to communion. I don’t think my relationship to God has deteriorated, nor my relationship to the Church. In fact, since I regularly celebrate the Eucharist with Notre Dame, Saint Meinrad Arch-abbey, the National Shrine, and Pope Francis and Vespers with Meinrad daily, I am far more connected to the Universal Church.
What has almost vanished is a connection to local Parishes. What has replaced that is my experience with Betty at being a “house church.” We not only celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday in far more glorious fashion than we did in the parishes, we also daily celebrate Morning and Evening Prayer in virtual communion with many other people especially the Monks of Saint Meinrad.
If the pandemic ever allows us, we will resume some worship with the “locals.” But it will likely consist of Saturday Evening Mass. We plan to keep our Sunday morning practice of a national and worldwide celebration of the Eucharist. Both of us are at the age and have heath conditions that could easily make us homebound without the pandemic. If that happens ‘local parish worship’ will become irrelevant again. Therefore, our participation in local parishes has to be focused on developing a small network of people who hopefully will join our “house church” and stick with us if we become homebound.
Jack, your house church is what I have prayed to find for at least 25 years now. I think it is the closest we can come in the 21st century to following the Way that Jesus taught. But I don’t live in Ohio, unfortunately.
DeleteJack, are you familiar with Charles Davis? He was an English priest/theologian who was a rising star in British Catholic circles in the 1960s. He shook the Catholic establishment there when he very publicly resigned from his priesthood and the RCC. He taught religion and theology in Canada for years. While there he celebrated the Eucharist every week in his home with a few friends and family. After retirement he returned to the UK and apparently eventually returned to mass in churches in the last few years of his life. But he and his family were sustained by their house church for decades in Canada.
DeleteYes, I think I still have a book or two of Davis from his Catholic period. And I have been vaguely aware of his subsequent life but was not aware of his "house church" activities. Actually, there are many "former" priests who still celebrate in homes, etc. Some of them quietly "advertise" their availability.
DeleteI put "house church" in parenthesis because we celebrate the Eucharist by livestream. The nearest parallel is religious orders who centered their lives around the Divine Office. The earliest religious discouraged priests from becoming monks. Some of them were near enough to communities to go there for Weekend Liturgy. Many however rarely celebrated the Eucharist more than a few times a year, and some including saints went without the Eucharist for decades.
Personally, I am cautious in assuming I know what Jesus would do. Jesus could be very unpredictable.
DeleteBut we do know this: the early church founded by Jesus's followers consisted of members of various groups who, in the "old world order", did not typically mix together: Jews, Samaritans, God-fearers, pagans. The Good News was proclaimed to all these groups, and all these groups were welcome to the Christian table fellowship - after the appropriate initiation. The New Testament contains accounts of the early church trying to work through which rules were to be followed and which were to be set aside for the sake of the kingdom. I suppose that discernment continues today.
Just to elaborate for a moment on what I just wrote about Christian table fellowship.
DeleteOur Eucharistic celebrations are rooted in some form or fashion in the Jewish Passover meal, which was (and is) by no means an "open table": it was for Jews (over and against the pagans who had enslaved them).
As I mentioned, Jesus's first followers opened up their ritual meals to non-Jews - but it still wasn't "open table".
There is a basic tension here between exclusivity (the meal is for the initiated) and openness (initiation is open/available to all).
One would hope the discernment continues today! All is not settled, that’s for sure. No, of course nobody knows what Jesus would do in particular circumstances. But there was a pattern in his behavior, ( teaching by example) that showed openness towards ALL rather than an in- crowd only mindset. Now the apostles and disciples and early followers often missed the meaning of his actions, which were absolutely radical. We are used to them because people who are Christian have heard the stories (and the official, orthodox spin on them in different eras) for almost two thousand years do we often miss how very radical Jesus’ life and teachings were. Jesus was so far ahead of his first century culture that they missed a whole lot of what he taught.
DeleteAnyway, in the first century it was probably true that only members of the literal tribe (Jews) would be at a Passover dinner. It was a very tribal culture and Jesus clearly sought to reduce tribalism rather than simply create a new tribe. This is no longer always true, because Judaism has also evolved over the centuries. But Jesus went out of his way to embrace those outside the tribe and Jewish people today do not seek new members. They accept converts but don’t go out looking for them. Jesus also treated women as equal to men ( a teaching that most of Christianity STILL hasn’t understood). When I read what Jesus said and did, I see a man who understood that ALL people are God’s people. Not just Jews. Pentecost teaches the same thing. (in my reading of the scriptures, but obviously not in yours). Anyway, we’ll never know for sure in this life. Maybe in the next - if there is a next…….
Yes, God made all of us, and therefore, all of us are good - even though all of us also are fallen and therefore are candidates for God's salvation through his son Jesus. God the Father and God the Son sent God the Holy Spirit to inaugurate this new age of salvation which is to be accomplished according to what was proclaimed yesterday in churches all over the world: those who have been initiated into new life with Christ proclaim this new life to those who have not yet been initiated.
ReplyDeleteIf we look around us, it's evident that not all people are initiated into this new life. Not all people are God's people. Many, many people don't want to be God's people. Some haven't yet been initiated (such as young children); some hear the Good News but reject it; some follow for a time but fall away, for many and various reasons - including an unwillingness to abide by the moral code of Christianity (such as consistently promoting government subsidies of abortions; divorcing and remarrying; destroying the goods of the earth for greed and profit; using other person as objects rather than children of God; and so on). And some never hear the Good News before they die.
The first reading from yesterday's mass makes it clear that, in fact, the mighty wind didn't blow over all people all over the world. It blew in one house. The tongues of flame didn't come to everyone; they only came to Jesus's disciples. The crowd in Jerusalem were the first to have the Good News proclaimed to them. That proclamation has been happening for 2,000 years and continues today.
God greatly desires that all people be one with him. But he didn't make it happen all at once. For reasons better understood by him than us, he decided it was to happen by sending out heralds of the Good News to all parts of the world. (They're us.) This proclamation been happening over the course of many generations.
Because God has arranged things this way, it means that all of us have responsibilities. Those of us who have the great blessing of being initiated, are responsible for proclaiming our great good fortune to others and inviting them to share in it. Those of us who are having the Good News proclaimed to them, are called to respond by following him.
You seriously believe that God has chosen to exclude billions and billions of people? That only you land a relative handful of others over the billions of years of human history are "saved". The God I see is far more generous than are the overwhelming numbers of churches that call themselves "christian" but don't follow Jesus's example. God gave some people the gift of tongues, according to the story in the bible. Why - if not to begin to break down divisions, to stop excluding the stranger, but to welcome and embrace them. The churches set up their own man-made rules - why? Perhaps its because of their human vanity - they turn themselves into god, they seek control. They claim to know God's mind. But they are just human, as are all who might show up at mass one day and want to to to the table. Jesus never excluded anyone - but was, as Jack noted, especially hard on the "religious leaders" - who sought to control and exclude. Sometimes I wonder how many christians today have ever actually read the gospels. Not the OT, not the epistles, but the words of Jesus, the actions of Jesus, as best we know them through imperfect human messengers who did not witness Jesus' life, and learned of him and his teachings only second-hand, through oral tradition. But there is enough there that the basics come through, even with all of the errors and omissions of the bible that came down through the centuries. WWJD? That's one thing the evangelicals get right.
Delete"You seriously believe that God has chosen to exclude billions and billions of people?"
DeleteNot what I said.
"Jesus never excluded anyone"
DeleteMany people rejected him, though, even in his own time. And today.
But he didn’t reject them. That’s the whole point.
DeleteYou will believe what you want to believe, as will I. Neither of us knows who is “ right”. We can’t know because God is mystery. We get hints, glimpses, but God is beyond human understanding by definition.
We read the same scriptures but arrive at different interpretations. Since my interpretations after more than seven decades of life diverge so much from Christian orthodoxy I am on my own pretty much, my primary spiritual companionship now in the form of books. A house church would be nice though.
I had not known that open table was up for a vote in the EC national convention this year. Our parish has had it for years. The Washington National Cathedral has it. But maybe the same group who don’t like gay marriage and women priests in the EC are behind the objection. I don’t follow EC politics very closely. Generally there is far less drama than in the RCC, which seems characterized by non- stop turmoil these days. I pray for Francis- he is trying very hard to return the RCC to a path that more closely follows Jesus’ teachings, and he hits wall after wall.
Please excuse the grammar errors. I tend to write and run so often don’t do a good job proofreading.
DeleteIf ALL people aren’t God’s people, then God is not Love. If God is not Love, than who would want to spend eternity in God’s presence? It wouldn’t be “heavenly”, that’s for sure.
Jim said: Those of us who have the great blessing of being initiated, are responsible for proclaiming our great good fortune to others and inviting them to share in it.
ReplyDeleteI see it a little differently. We who have been baptized into Christ have the responsibility for finding Christ in others including the unbaptized, those of no religion, and those against religion. Like Ignatius we should find God in all things. We do not give Christ or Christianity to anyone, because it is not something we possess but a God who possesses us and everyone else. The gift of baptism is something that should humble us not exult us above others. Like Jesus himself we should be the servant of all.
Yes, I think that, too. But I have always wondered if it's bc my parents were scoffers and unbelievers, and I simply don't like to think of them in Hell.
DeleteOh, Jean. Sometimes your comments make me so sad. God doesn’t send good people to hell, whether they were believers or not. I’m not convinced that God sends anyone to hell.
DeleteWhen I asked the priest about them after Mom died, he said that a) God sent them wherever they were meant to be and b) it was my job to make sure *I* didn't end up in Hell. I suppose he's right. They had their free will and so do I.
DeleteJean, I'm sorry your priest wasn't more pastoral. Seems like that would have been the right time to say something about commending them to the infinite goodness and mercy of God. And not the right time to be putting the fear of hell into you. I don't think there is a right time for that.
DeleteMeh, he did his job, met with me briefly after Mass in the vestry and offered a blessing. About the same as going to the doctor for migraine, and he tells you to avoid stress and writes you a scrip for Tylenol #3.
DeleteIf you seek to fortify yourself with the spiritual food of the Eucharist, the idea in the front of your mind is that you are being fortified for the task of the Great Commission (if you're an Anglican) or more specifically in the RCC to be an example that scooches people toward Holy Mother Church.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't aspire to that, you have no business in the Communion line, IMO.
Pope St Gregory cautioned St Augustine, his holy fussbudget, not to try to cram everything about Christianity down the throats of the pagans all at once, which Augustine was prone to doing. Just as you don't feed babies solid food from the off, said Gregory, you don't feed "babes in the faith" with all the info at once.
Are there things Christian churches could do better when it comes to unbelievers? Yes, of course. I have ranted endlessly about the Church Ladies and their weird and off
-putting approach to RCIA prep. If churches looked harder at how they were welcoming people and whom they were letting speak for the parish, we might have more Christians.
I am certainly nobody's idea of a good Catholic. And yet ... I'm the only one The Boy is still in conversation with about religion, and my guess is that us Bad Catholics are wishy washy enough not to be easily offended or rulebound. I'll entertain any number of his nutty ideas about Camus if it keeps him thinking ...
Interesting. I’ve never heard that before - in either the EC or the RCC - that communion is “to fortify” people to go out and find new followers.
ReplyDeleteI have always thought that the purpose of the Eucharistic meal is to follow what Jesus asked of us - “do this in memory of me.” By your interpretation I have no place at anyone’s communion table.
But I don’t believe that is why Jesus asked us to come together to share bread and wine. So I’ll continue to receive “in memory of him” - if I ever go back to church in person anyway.
The post communion prayer in the BCP: "... you have fed us with spiritual food and graciously accepted us as members of your Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ. Send us now into the world that we may serve you with gladness and singleness of heart."
DeleteAs it was represented to me, Communion sustains us for service to God and others.
I don't know what most Catholics think Communion is for. The explanations in RCIA focused on who it's not for and when it is a sin to receive it. Also the correct way to hold your hands was demonstrated and we practiced with Church ladies correcting position that might lead to dropping the Host. Then it took 30 minutes for the Church Ladies to discuss highlights of Host dropping experiences.
I have a vague idea that Catholic communion is meant to purge us of venial sins that we're not going to Hell for anyway, and that you have the obligation to receive at Christmas and Easter.
Of course I am familiar with the post- communion prayer. I have always liked it since first going to an EC church. I especially like the idea of the Eucharist being spiritual food rather than (literally) the body and blood of Jesus. But I never interpreted the “send us into the world” phrase as meaning I should go out to try to recruit people to Christianity, unless it means what you suggest - to go out and try to live as Jesus taught - serving God by serving others - God’s people - who are everywhere, Christian and not Christian.
DeleteAnglicans may believe in transubstantiation or the real presence, hence, "the body of Christ, the bread of Heaven; the blood of Christ, the cup of salvation." There is no teaching about *how* Jesus gets in there, only that he is.
DeleteYou are fortified to serve God, however you interpret that. I don't know if most Anglicans have the notion that Communion explicitly washes away sin. It might have become a more popular idea when all parishes were strongly urged to offer Communion every Sunday instead of only monthly or a few times per year.
The EC parishes around here all have the Eucharist every liturgy on Sunday and usually also on Wednesday. They emphasize “ real presence” but don’t define it. Our pastor explicitly said that there is no literalness in the understanding the words of the consecration. Jesus was using metaphor. I have not heard any references to the Eucharist washing away sin. They seem far less focused on sin than the RCC. As far as confession goes, they say “All may, some should, none must”. The Cathedral has a Lenten service that offers confession also. They have a lot of priests available for confession after the service, scattered throughout the Cathedral. This is similar to what RC parishes do around here. But I’m not aware of any EC parishes doing it - only the Cathedral. No penance services and confession, if desired, is arranged privately.
DeleteIf I stumbled on a bunch of indigenous doing a tribal dance, I wouldn't feel right to jump in and start hopping around. Dances are sacred to them and I don't know exactly what that means to them. It's a way of showing respect. But keeping Christians of other denominations away from the Cathilic table because of TS, a theory about what goes on in the Eucharist, that doesn't sound right to me.
ReplyDeleteAnd you even know how to dance! I think that's a good analogy.
DeleteThis has been an interesting conversation. Here's what I am thinking about as a result. Not sure it is wholly orthodox, and not offering these thoughts as arguments or insights for anyone else:
ReplyDelete1. All people are God's creatures. He loves them all regardless of whether the RCC or any other denomination offers them Communion.
2. Eternal salvation might not rest on whether someone receives Communion in any particular Christian denomination.
3. Jesus offered his Body and Blood to his disciples, to those most immersed in his ministry. As communicants, we are likewise fed with Communion to continue that ministry. We should approach communion in a spirit of discipleship.
4. Visitors to any denomination should not assume that the spiritual nourishment of the Eucharist is for everyone.
5. Churches should think about what their services offer in the way of divine welcome and spiritual engagement to non-communicants.
6. Communion should give us confidence that God finds us good enough to continue Jesus's work. It should not be seen as a magical transaction that, over a lifetime, will transport the soul to Heaven. It should not be seen simply as a re-enactment /commemoration of the first communion.
Some thoughts on Eucharist- Richard Rohr, OFM
ReplyDeleteMore than a theological statement that requires intellectual assent, the Eucharist is an invitation to socially experience the shared presence of God, and to be present in an embodied way…
Jesus’ most consistent social action was eating in new ways and with new people, encountering those who were oppressed or excluded from the system. He didn’t please anybody, it seems, always breaking the rules and making a bigger table.
The Eucharistic meal is meant to be a microcosmic event, summarizing at one table what is true in the whole macrocosm: We are one, we are equal in dignity, we all eat of the same divine food, and Jesus is still and always “eating with sinners” just as he did when on Earth. …
Many Christians say they believe in the Presence in the Eucharist, but they don’t get that it is everywhere—which is the whole point! They don’t seem to know how to recognize the Presence of God when they leave the church, when they meet people who are of a different religion or race or sexual orientation or nationality. …
As Christianity developed, the Church moved from Jesus’ meal with open table fellowship to its continuance in the relatively safe ritual meal we call the Eucharist. Unfortunately, that ritual itself came to redefine social reality in a negative way, in terms of worthiness and unworthiness—the opposite of Jesus’ intention! Even if we deny that our intention is to define membership, it is clearly the practical message people hear today. …
Notice how Jesus is accused by his contemporaries. By one side, he’s criticized for eating with tax collectors and sinners (Matthew 9:10-11, for example); by the other side, he’s judged for eating too much (Luke 7:34) or with the Pharisees and lawyers (Luke 7:36-50, 11: 37-54, 14:1). He ate with both sides. He ate with lepers (Mark 14:3), he received a woman with a bad reputation at a men’s dinner (Luke 7:36-37), and he even invited himself over to a “sinner’s” house (Luke 19:1-10). He didn’t please anybody, it seems, always breaking the rules and making a bigger table…
During Jesus’ time, religious law was being interpreted almost exclusively through the Book of Leviticus, particularly chapters 17-24, the Law of Holiness. Jesus critiques his own tradition. He refuses to interpret the Mosaic law in terms of inclusion/exclusion, the symbolic self-identification of Judaism as the righteous, pure, elite group. Jesus continually interprets the Law of Holiness in terms of the God whom he has met—and that God is always compassion and mercy.
Jean said:
ReplyDelete6. Communion should give us confidence that God finds us good enough to continue Jesus's work. It should not be seen as a magical transaction that, over a lifetime, will transport the soul to Heaven. It should not be seen simply as a re-enactment /commemoration of the first communion.
Rohr said:
Many Christians say they believe in the Presence in the Eucharist, but they don’t get that it is everywhere—which is the whole point! They don’t seem to know how to recognize the Presence of God when they leave the church, when they meet people who are of a different religion or race or sexual orientation or nationality. …
As Christianity developed, the Church moved from Jesus’ meal with open table fellowship to its continuance in the relatively safe ritual meal we call the Eucharist. Unfortunately, that ritual itself came to redefine social reality in a negative way, in terms of worthiness and unworthiness—the opposite of Jesus’ intention! Even if we deny that our intention is to define membership, it is clearly the practical message people hear today. …
First, the overemphasis that we have upon the Eucharist undercuts the emphasis that we should have upon Baptism as defining membership in the Church. In practice pre-Vatican II Catholics often viewed themselves as constantly sinning, and therefore needing Confession and Communion to reinstate their "{membership", i.e., Eucharist became more important than Baptism.
Baptism means that we are different from the non-Baptized; we have accepted Jesus as our Lord and Savior, we are members of His Body and we do not lose that membership through sin.
Since Eucharist also signifies that we are members of Christ’s Body, denying communion to persons who are already baptized is very different from offering communion to persons who are not yet baptized. When any minister, or church organization denies communion to a baptized person, I think they are in deep trouble with God. They risk identifying their will with God's will.
As a baptized person, I should be able to receive communion in the Orthodox Church. However, I would never approach the Orthodox Church for communion for fear of causing them to offend God.
If the local Orthodox pastor ever says to me: “Look Jack, you have worshipped with us now for three decades. You certainly look, believe and act like the Orthodox, come receive communion, you don’t have to cease receiving Communion in the Roman Church, and you don’t have to be initiated with Chrism like other baptized persons .” Some Orthodox priests actually do this for some Catholics whom they know well; occasionally some Catholic priests do this for some Protestants whom they know well.
I would probably respond. “I have seen you receive many Roman Catholics and Evangelicals after instruction through anointing with Chrism, I would not want to appear that I got in easy without an initiation. I suggest that I become a member of the choir in the Fall of the year, become proficient in chant and also as a reader, leading the prayers and doing the readings during Lent and then receiving Communion on Holy Thursday for the first time in the Orthodox Church.” I think such a procedure would assure everyone that my communion with the Orthodox Church was not a casual matter that I have undertaken lightly, or some “right” that I had acquired by baptism.
Jack - Baptism means that …. we have accepted Jesus as our Lord and savior
DeleteBut Catholics and most mainline Protestants practice infant baptism. Only adults can knowingly and willfully “accept Jesus as Lord”. Perhaps the Protestants who have adult baptism are right after all.
And as Rohr emphasizes, Jesus repeatedly expanded the table, inviting the “outsiders” - the uninitiated if you prefer that word. By inviting them to the table, it is very likely that most became disciples of the Way.
When I go to a Catholic or orthodoxy liturgy I don’t take communion. I refrain not because I think that God would be offended (God is a way “bigger person” than most human beings) but because some people might be upset.
I should have more precisely said "Baptism signifies..that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior" I did not intend to imply all the subjectivity involved with the words "means" and "accepted." That obviously leads to all the subjectivity which you and Rohr would like to emphasize, and also the idea that we lose our baptism through sin or erroneous beliefs.
DeleteWell, realistically, belief is subjective. Everyone on this small board holds different beliefs. All are, or were, Catholic. All have been baptized. Take this small board and extrapolate to two billion people who claim a christian identity by baptism and beliefs vary in ways that most of us don't even know about. It seems that under the "initiation" rule, the atheist who is baptized could sit at the table (although probably have no interest or desire to do so) but the seeker who is not baptized cannot. This doesn't seem to align with what Jesus modeled according to the gospels.
DeleteThe RCC talks about baptism of desire. Perhaps all those who seek God may approach the table in good conscience because the seeking alone indicates desire. Men - human beings - make the rules, but God doesn't have to follow them.
If we invite non-Christians to receive communion, we are bypassing Baptism. Do they believe in Christ? Do they realize that partaking in the Eucharist signifies that they are baptized, members of his Body? The question is not whether they are good human beings, or that they might want to become members of the Church. The question is whether they want to be baptized? Both they and the Church need to face the question of their relationship to Christ.
ReplyDeleteThe question of communion has been greatly complicated by clericalism in Christianity. Most clerics believe that you cannot, or at least should not be in communion with groups of clerics with whom they are not in communion. They have divided the Body of Christ, and ask us to choose whether we stand with their clergy group, or with some other group of clergy.
I believe that baptism is more important than ordination in defining the Body of Christ.
Jack - Is the "body of Christ" the same thing (in your mind) as "God's people"?
DeleteNo. Obviously the Jewish people are God's people. As well many other people who would say "yes" to being part of God's people, i.e., they are children of God. And many who might say "yes" to being a friend of God, defined as one who pursues transcendence in the form of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. Or in modern terms, "being spiritual."
DeleteHowever, Merton who was an expert in dialog was very conscious that religious traditions are very different and diverse. While we may find similarities in dialog everyone should be warily of saying " we are not different" or that "it does not matter that we are different." That usually shows that people are ignorant of their own tradition as well as that of others.
I respect Orthodox who say that they are different than Catholics, and that the difference is important, and who have difficulty in seeing me as both Catholic and Orthodox although I see myself as being both.
We can be in conversation and have a communion of beliefs and values with agreeing upon everything. While with the Orthodox I emphasize my love of the Divine Office. That is in fact why I go to the local Orthodox Church. I emphasize that they provide me a liturgical experience of Vespers which is completely lacking in our parishes. I emphasize that I am a student of Robert Taft, S.J. a Catholic Byzantine scholar whom many of them respect. The Ecumenical Patriarch bestowed on him the equivalent of the title of monsignor in recognition of his scholarship.
We should affirm the concrete things that we can agree upon rather than fighting about abstracts in which we cannot agreement.
Of course religious traditions are very different and diverse. But “the Lord God made them all”. I think God did so for good reasons and that all are “God’s people”, not just those who in the last 2000 years became identified as christians. So they are God’s People, not simply spiritual friends. They are also part of God’s family. And ALL of God’s people have some unique understandings of God, of the sacred, of the divine - that can benefit the people who aren’t part of the same tradition.
DeleteOver at Pray Tell there is a thread about ECUSA's proposed wide open table policy. The original post is insufferably smirky, as if Catholics would *never* fall into such unseemly disarray.
ReplyDeleteThe post is also wholly without compassion for Episcopalians trying to maintain the Golden Mean as ECUSA continues to be yanked between extremist reformers and iron-bound traditionalists.
But it does hit long-established and basic theological points that ECUSA would have to ignore to institute a "y'all come" table.
I was hoping the Lutheran pastor commenting on the thread might discuss how a move to a wide open table might affect the communion agreement between Episcopalians and Lutherans hammered out many years ago now. There are some combined Lutheran/Episcopalian parishes in my area, and I expect this is going to be difficult for them.
I will read it. We started going to the EC after the gay bishop wars were over. Those who didn’t like it had left to form a new Anglican based American denomination or had joined an African diocese (!). So it’s been pretty blissfully peaceful compared to the ongoing, ever- worsening civil war in American Catholicism. If this new civil war in the EC becomes more than a few skirmishes and impacts the parish level we may simply remain unchurched forever. We haven’t been to church physically in almost 3 years anyway.
ReplyDeleteMethodists, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians have open tables. Unitarians opted for potluck meals as a kind of agape meal when I was going there, though Christian theological language like "agape" was increasingly discouraged so as not to offend the agnostics and atheists among us.
DeleteNo reason for you to remain unchurched if the open table is your sticking point.
Well, as I have mentioned, I am really SBNR. When I left the RCC I was content to be unchurched. But my husband wanted to go and he liked the music at the EC parish. He does not worry himself about arcane points of theology.
DeleteBut if the national PTB decide that parishes can’t continue to decide for themselves whether or not to have an open table going forward, it could be a bad sign for the future. The main attraction for mr of the EC is beautiful liturgy combined with minimal “must believe” dogma, doctrine, and rules.
PS. My husband grew up in the Presbyterian church baptized there at age 4) and then the Congregational church from middle childhood. The Congregational church eventually joined up with another denomination to form the United Church of Christ. He told me that communion was offered only rarely, and was real bread and real grape juice in little cups. No wine. My husband’s roots go way back to the Massachusetts Bay Colony and includes multiple Congregational church minister ancestors. But he likes the EC best. Theology has nothing to do with his preferences. :)
Delete