Follow-up thoughts on communion and baptism

First, I want to stress that I believe there is an important difference between “not eligible” and “prohibited.” Eligible means “having the right to do or obtain something.” Someone who is not eligible for something does not have a right to expect that thing. In Matthew 20:1-16, only the workers hired in the early morning were *eligible* for the usual daily wage. The others did not have the right to expect that wage. And yet Jesus delivered the usual daily wage to all of them: those who had the right to obtain that wage, and those who had worked fewer hours and thus did not have the right to obtain that wage. Prohibited means you cannot receive something without breaking the law; not eligible means that the law does not guarantee you a right to receive something. Unbaptized persons are not eligible to receive communion: they have no right to expect that communion will be served to them. This, I believe, is meet and right. But the canon does not say they are prohibited from receiving, or, more to the point, that the faithful are prohibited from serving them communion.

So I would argue that it is not a matter of canon law that we cannot serve communion to the unbaptized. But *should* we serve communion to the unbaptized? I would argue that radical welcome would be better served by baptizing the unbaptized and then serving them communion rather than serving them communion and ignoring the state of their baptism.

Most of the arguments in favor of communion without baptism (CwoB) seem to have a very low doctrine of both baptism and eucharist. If one believes that baptism is (not symbolizes, but *is*) death to an old self and a new birth in Christ, and that Eucharist is that new self being made one with and strengthened by the Body and Blood of Christ, and that both are essential to what we understand to be God's plan for our justification and sanctification (which is not to say that God could not accomplish said justification and sanctification some other way, but this is the way we know that God has promised us), then their order very much matters, and pretending that either is trivial or able to be omitted is to neglect the faith.

The only argument for Eucharist preceding Baptism that I've seen that takes both Eucharist and Baptism seriously is the Wesleyan argument that the grace of Eucharist could lead an unbaptized person to become baptized. While that is not what I would advocate for, I don't think that's a bad argument, and I would certainly be willing to break bread with those who hold this position. But most of the arguments for CwoB seem to take the stance that communion and baptism are both "just symbols" and that including people at the table is more important than the process of growth in grace imparted by the two sacraments.

In other words, I would say that one *can* advocate for communion before baptism without abandoning sacramental theology, but that most arguments for communion without (not before) baptism DO abandon the sacramental teaching of the church.

So my conclusion on the matter of CwoB is that it *can* be done without violating canon law. There are reasons to do it that could be consistent with the teaching of the church on the subject of sacraments, but most of the reasons advanced for the practice are bad reasons and would be better served by making our radical welcome at the baptismal font rather than at the altar rail, preserving the link between the two sacraments.

Canon I.17.7

UPDATE: See some follow-up thoughts on communion and baptism.

It appears there are some who want the next General Convention to weigh in on Communion without Baptism. The Diocese of Northern California has sent a resolution for General Convention's consideration to repeal Canon I.17.7.

I think there are a lot of good reasons that the norm should be that baptism should precede communion. While John Wesley made a theological argument why communion preceding and leading to baptism might be a means of grace, most of the arguments in favor of communion without baptism are, frankly, theologically poor ones that actually weaken an ethos of radical inclusion, despite professing to strengthen it.

But I think a lot of the noise that has emerged around this issue is misplaced, because I don’t think Canon I.17.7 does what people seem to think it does. I don't think that having it in place means that people who openly invite the unbaptized to receive communion are breaking the current canons, nor would repealing it change anything about whether it is permitted or required to allow the unbaptized to receive communion.

In other words, I believe that serving communion to the unbaptized is usually a bad idea, but not currently a violation of the canons of the church, and publicly teaching that the unbaptized are welcome to receive communion is probably not a violation of the current canons, given the narrow reading precedent has given for what constitutes "doctrine contrary to that held by the Church".

Canon I.17 is titled "Of Regulations Respecting the Laity."

Canon I.17.6 establishes rights for persons who have been refused or repelled from Holy Communion to appeal to the bishop and possibly receive an order directing the parish priest to admit them to communion.

Canon I.17.7 follows that, asserting that the unbaptized are not eligible (in possession of the right) to receive communion, and thus are not entitled to the aforementioned procedure.

Again, these canons fall in to the heading of “regulations concerning the laity” – this does not establish that a priest who serves communion to an unbaptized person has committed a presentable offense; rather, the canon denies the unbaptized access to the quasi-judicial process that could order their parish priest to serve them communion.

I think in the fight over Canon I.17.7, both sides seem to suppose that the canon is a prohibition on those in holy orders explicitly inviting the unbaptized to receive communion, or knowingly serving communion to the unbaptized. Perhaps we should have such a canon (I would support the first, but be wary of legislating the second), but Canon I.17.7 is about whether the unbaptized have a right to communion, not whether they can be served.

I would point out that the unbaptized are not members of the church, so the church cannot really legislate their actions. The church can legislate the actions of the baptized, and even more so those in holy orders.

Canon I.17 is regulation about rights of the laity, with a clarification that the unbaptized are not a part of the laity and thus do not possess those rights. One becomes a part of the laos through baptism. I would argue that canon I.17.7 is clarifying but not particularly helpful, as its elimination would not change the fact that even if 1.17.7 were gone, the unbaptized would still not fall under canon 1.17 because they are not laity.

Should we have a canon establishing that it is the doctrine of this church that baptism should precede communion, and thus any clergy person holding and teaching contrary to that doctrine violates Canon IV.4.1.h.2 (In exercising his or her ministry, a Member of the Clergy shall… refrain from… holding and teaching publicly or privately, and advisedly, any Doctrine contrary to that held by the Church)? Perhaps. But Canon I.17.7 is not a statement of doctrinal prohibition; it is a statement of eligibility for a legal process. The fact that the unbaptized do not have a right to receive communion is not the same as a canon prohibiting those in holy orders from inviting them to communion anyway.

Now, if Canon I.17.7 were a canon that prohibited clergy from serving communion to the unbaptized, and prohibited teaching that baptism, I think there would be a case for repealing it, but the resolution from Northern California does not make that case.

I think the case for not legislating this via canon law is as follows: There is genuine theological disagreement about how best to carry out the mission of radical hospitality Christ commended to the Church. Some believe strongly that encountering the Lord in the blessed sacrament of Holy Communion can draw people to the font, to be baptized into the death and new life of Christ, and that this means of grace ought not be suppressed by church law. Others believe, also strongly, that without baptism we are spiritually dead, and that serving communion to the unbaptized suggests that baptism is not essential to life in Christ, and hides the urgency of Christ's command to make disciples of all nations, baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. While affirming that Holy Baptism is the sacrament by which God adopts us as his children and makes us members of Christ’s Body, the Church, and inheritors of the kingdom of God, we recognize that people of good faith differ as to whether the grace of Holy Communion presupposes baptism, or could draw people to baptism.

I believe there is no case for "communion without baptism" – the position that communion can do good apart from baptism. There could be a case for communion before baptism, so long as it is taught and understood that communion served to the unbaptized is to help bring them to the font.

I would urge the General Convention to reject the resolution from Northern California. It does not do what it hopes to accomplish, and it states all the wrong reasons for doing so.