The folks over at Daily Episcopalian, which the Integrity site includes among its roll of progressive blogs, has included an essay by Derek Olsen, who teaches at Emory, rejecting arguments on behalf of extending communion to the non-baptized. You can read it here, but may need to find it in the July archives. Here's my response:
I share Derek Olsen's convictions about the importance of catechism, but am uncovinced that Jesus wants us to set ourselves up as gatekeepers, making decisions on the basis of outward forms about who has or has not made an “adequate” act of commitment before admitting them to the table.
I understand one might respond that the real issue is in not being a gatekeeper to baptism; that undergoing baptism is simply a part of coming to the table. That may be so, and I believe it makes sense to continue to present it as so. But, when someone who has not undergone outward, ritual baptism comes forward for communion, are we to turn them away? Is this what Jesus would do?
I suspect even the ritual of baptism can become an idol, when we fail to distinguish between its physical, outward form and the underlying spiritual reality.
Are we to take it that, in Jesus’ eyes, there is “neither Jew nor Greek, but … well, of course, there is the outwardly baptized versus the non-baptized”?
In the pericope of the Syrophoenician woman/ Canaanite woman (Mk 7:24-30 // Mt 15:21-28), there is good reason to argue that the latter–who pointedly did not belong to the “community of Israel” in her contemporaries’ eyes–takes up the role of rabbi in a “rabbinal controversy” (one of the traditional discursive forms catalogued by Rudolf Bultmann) with Jesus, and wins the argument. Jesus seems to bow to the force of her argument that she should not be excluded from the meal. Or, as she humbly–and pointedly–puts it, “Even the dogs are allowed to eat the crumbs that fall from the table.”
Granted, her response may well allude to several scriptural passages, demonstrating her desire to embrace the stories shared by those “at the table.” But, ultimately, Jesus proved unwilling to exclude this woman from being fed on the basis of her not having undergone a specific ritual of induction.
She wasn’t baptized–or ritually converted to Judaism–before Jesus conceded her argument, praised her faith, and stopped treating her as an outcast. He pointedly did not tell her (utlimately), “No, first undergo the mikvah, then you can be fed.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Dear CG ... This post is clearly one of your most challenging and needful for us in the trenches working God's work. This is a rarity, yes, you'll be amazed, but we're *speechless* Add to this, our dear friend, the wise and efficacious (!) MP has stated the reality of the human condition most slendidly. This is the practical-salvific voice of the Spirit coming through him: "Therefore, benefit should be the guiding principle not law. We lay prostrate before you both. Thank you for teaching us.
I've done many stints in old folk's homes... What I'm discussing is not whether the sacrament won't "work" without baptism, but what our normative practice should be. As far as I'm concerned, we should welcome people to the table through baptism.
As far as gatekeeping goes my belief is that the priest should state clearly that all baptized are welcome to receive the sacrament, those not baptized or who do not wish to receive are welcome to come forward for a blessing. Once that has been said, the priest has done his/her/its job. If an unbaptized person chooses to receive it is on their conscience, not that of the priest...
But again--I'm more interested in normative practice that will lead most clearly and directly to sound Christian discipleship.
I think anybody who wants to talk about this subject should do a stint in an old folks' home. When faced with a congregation, many of whom cannot remember 10 minutes ago, let alone whether or not they ever went to church/were baptised etc. you have to make a choice. Do you refuse communion to those who cannot produce, on the spot, their baptism certificates or do you proffer the elements to anybody who indicates they want it. Of course, if you have anything of the Christ about you, you go for the latter option.
Afterwards you then have to ask yourself two questions. Did the world end and did the fact that some of the communicants were, more than likely, not baptised matter? The answer to (a) is, of course, not. The answer to (b) in my opinion, is no, because whatever we do cannot effect God. Therefore, the Eucharist was given to us for our benefit not God's benefit, as are all sacraments and the commandment that we should worship God. Therefore, benefit should be the guiding principle not law. This does NOT give a carte blanche free-communion policy because everything is contextual, but it does make it a practical matter rather than a doctrinal one.
Post a Comment