St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Church

The vestry and wardens of my church are for open communion. They are all baptized, however, which has made me reflect upon what open communion means.

Open communion is when a congregation invites others to share the body and blood of Christ with individuals who are not baptized. I like the people who endorse open communion, as friends, but it makes me theologically nervous. I do think that there are some good consequences of open communion but want to call attention to a moral hazard that may lurk within such a theological shift.

When Jim Jones invited people to take suicide, the power of people ritually drinking the Kool-aid overwhelmed people's responses for individual survival. One person took it, and the next person followed, and then the next person, and then the next person. Why was that? An observer might ask, how is such group psychology different than taking communion? The difference is that taking communion is done with liberty, and baptism - ideally - represents this.

My mother is a Unitarian. The rule is pretty clear about her not taking communion. If she comes to church, she doesn't take communion. She prefers that. But in an open communion environment, I can become subtly coercive. I invite a dynamic that doesn't respect her choice not to engage in the ritual. She then seems stubborn in my book, and I proceed to get resentful she won't accept what I see as a divine act of generosity - that God even loves her! But now she seems to be refusing to become part of my family! I've just changed the rules for her so she can do what I want her to - take communion. I've now created more problems by impinging her integrity to participate only as a witness to the service, but inviting her to act in a way against her conscience.

By connecting baptism - or confirmation - with the Eucharist we allow people to connect liberty to with the process of sacrifice and redemption within the Eucharist. Perhaps this illuminates the general point of doctrine - to reveal and raise those desires we can't control, so we can look at them and use them for the sake of our mutual encouragement and aid. My point doctrine (good doctrine) enables, rather than constrains, freedom.

This is different than saying, doctrine is what makes things pure and holy. This seems to be the perspective of conservatives. Without doctrine, things get messy, unclean, and polluted. I don't find this as convincing, and such view is what makes liberal Christians upset and outsiders circumspect of Christian claims toward love - if you follow the rules, you are loved, which is not exactly the entire teaching of Jesus (who did say follow his commandments, but he did also say other things as well that shines a bright light upon what "following" and "commandments" are.)

I'm not disparaging it. But I think the impulse toward open communion is more important for those who are already baptized than those who are not baptized. As a baptized Christian, I want to be part of an open, engaging, loving church where people can come to the service and feel the power of God. Perhaps by emphasizing open communion other parts of our life begin to change: we become more welcoming as a rule, more able to invite people into the fellowship of friends that strengthens our communities and pleases God. We change to become better Christians. Thats what seems to make open communion justifiable: not because it protects the host, nor because it is an evangelical tool or drug. It changes the hearts of the baptized.

I don't think, however, there is any guarantee that those who are not baptized will find open communion, in itself, that much more intriguing in a church community. The more theologically serious may still refuse. And a few might try communion just to see how it feels. I sometimes suspect that open communion just becomes another sort of coercive Kool-aid. In my church, I hope that unbaptized, searching, theologically interested people come to discover the power of God within this world. But I hope they can feel as comfortable not taking communion as taking communion. But it is their choice, and the rule, ideally, lets them feel comfortable with their choice. The rule separating the baptized from the unbaptized allows them to make their decisions consciously.

My preference is that before we make this theological change, we make our baptismal font prominent. Through liturgical space and gesture we show who we are.