Communion Without Baptism? A California Task Force’s Report

Read this report from a task force of the Diocese of Northern California.  The report examines scriptural and doctrinal arguments for and against inviting all present to receive Communion regardless whether they’ve been baptized.  The report summarizes survey responses from Episcopal Church dioceses and Northern California parishes.

When Jesus recruited his first disciples — the men with whom he eventually shared the inaugural eucharistic feast, the Last Supper — his call was was simply "Follow me."   There’s no reliable evidence that any of the Twelve were ever
baptized. [1]

Hat tip:  Drell’s Descants.  Predictably, traditionalist commenters, both there and at Tiber-swimmer Alvin Kimmel’s Pontifications, are getting exercised about the very idea that the unwashed might come to the communion rail.   

NOTES

[1] John 1.35-42 says that Andrew, brother of Peter, was a follower of John the Baptizer.  Tom Roberts suggests
that we can therefore assume that at least Andrew had been baptized by
the Baptizer.   But it’s not clear much weight we can give to the
Johannine version of Jesus’s calling of Andrew and Peter as disciples,
given that the Synoptics tell the tale in a strikingly-different manner
(Mt 4.18-20, Mk 1.16-20, Lk 5.1-11).   One wonders whether the author
of the Fourth Gospel was subtly trying to put down Peter — cf. Jn
20.3-4, which claims, contrary to Lk 24.12, that it was John the son of
Zebedee, not Peter, who was first to enter arrive at the empty tomb.

Comments

8 responses to “Communion Without Baptism? A California Task Force’s Report”

  1. Simeon Avatar

    “Predictably, traditionalist commenters, both there and at Tiber-swimmer Alvin Kimmel’s Pontifications, are getting exercised about the very idea that the unwashed might come to the communion rail.”
    D.C.
    The “traditionalists” are getting exercised about the unwashed all over the place – that’s kind of the point of a purity movement, eh ? That video they released at the Pittsburgh conf a week or so ago called everyone who supported the two, hot-button issues at GC03 things like “pagan,” “insane” and “counterfeit, non-Christians.”
    Can’t get any clearer than that, can you ? Which is the reason I have no hope of any reconciliation with them…

  2. phil swain Avatar
    phil swain

    “… he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and he went into the tomb. … Then the other disciple who reached the tomb first, also went in…” John 20:4-8. Why do you continue to insist that John entered the tomb before Peter based on the Gospel of John?

  3. D. C. Avatar

    Right you are, Phil; thanks. I’ve corrected the assertion. (It’s yet another example of how memory plays tricks.)

  4. Phil swain Avatar
    Phil swain

    “the purity movement” as in “blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”

  5. phil swain Avatar
    phil swain

    No, you have not corrected your assertion. Your assertion was that “the author of the Fourth Gospel was sublty trying to put down Peter.” In fact, doesn’t this pericope emphasize the status of Peter over John in that John waits for Peter to enter first?

  6. D. C. Avatar

    Phil, my assertion was actually a question: one wonders whether the author of John was subtly trying to put down Peter.
    Obviously you and I read the Fourth Gospel differently. Look at all the references to the beloved disciple. I read those as a transparent attempt to prove that John was the most devoted to the Teacher and thus rightfully his favorite. Cf. the tale in Luke (?) about John and James asking Jesus to promise that they’d be at his right hand and left hand when he came into his kingdom — even their mother got into the act.

  7. Karen Avatar

    I suppose I’m one of those odd progressives who thinks that CWOB is theologically problematic, but for different reasons than the folks at T19. ECUSA has struggled mightily to reclaim a baptismal ecclesiology, and the reversal of “font to table” to “table to font” seems to undermine the very theology we’ve re-embraced. For a good perspective on this issue I would recommend John Farwell’s article in the Spring 2004 issue of Anglican Theological Review.

  8. *Christopher Avatar

    I have to second Karen’s observations. I would say that this should not be our norm, even if it does happen from time to time, we want to respond pastorally, inviting the person to further faith exploration and baptism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *