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.