Ship of Fools: Communion to unbaptized persons

Thread: Communion to unbaptized persons Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028553

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

There is a bit of a controversy in my ECUSA diocese (which shall remain nameless; it is more of a tempest in a teapot actually) about folks not respecting the practice of limiting communion only to baptized Christians. Some people see this as an impermissible violation of canon law, while the priests who advocate it apparently feel that the requirement that one be baptized is too stringent a prerequisite. Our bishop is a bit of stickler for canon law (as, I must admit, am I), so I would imagine this will be dealt with rather swiftly.

I must admit to being a bit mystified as to why a clergyperson, assuming he/she knew a person was not baptized, would offer communion to them. It seems to me that the idea of baptism as the manner of entry into the Christian community is so rooted in Christian thought, practice and history as to be practically unquestionable.

Since most shipmates here are from the UK or the Land of Oz, what is the feeling in your corners of the Anglican world? Is it really too restrictive for actual reception of the eucharist to be reserved for baptized individuals? Is there any good theological/ecclesiastical reason to consider a change?

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

I've never claimed to be a theologian, but it seems downright ridiculous to insist that an adult presenting themselves at the altar be turned away. They've sat through the explanation of what it is, they obviously want a part of that, who the heck are we to say, "No, you've got it all backwards?"

(Kids are a different matter, and I leave that up to their parents [even though my thinking is quite similar to the Orthodoxen, I've just got no kids to practice on])

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

It is a tempest in a teapot. No episcopal priest asks every person presenting themselves for communion if they are baptized or not. I've seen LCMS ushers do it (and they wanted to know if the person presenting believed in the real presence). Many visitors to an episcopal parish are reluctant to take communion even if canonically they would be welcomed.

The canons and the prayer book list baptism as a prerequisite for receiving communion. I took an oath to follow both and intend to do so until they are properly changed. In my opinion, baptism should remain a requirement. Sitting through a service and deciding you want to take communion suggests you should ask to be baptized. A person desiring baptism should have an understanding of what it means to follow Christ before actually making the decision.

As to children, I believe more in the first communion tradition of Roman Catholics than the Orthodox tradition of allowing infants to receive. However, what the Orthodox do is acceptable and parents should be allowed to decide when their children are ready to receive communion. But, if your little one takes the bread and spits it out, please pick it up and swallow it.

A theological reason to change it is that perhaps receiving communion leads to conversion. Baptism may lead to faith or faith lead to baptism. It could be argued that communion could lead to faith which leads to baptism. I find the whole hospitality argument entirely unconvincing. Communion is a sacrament not a pre-coffee hour snack. If you really want to welcome a visitor who happens not to be baptized, offer to take them to lunch after church.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

I really agree with a lot of what you said, Beeswax; I think, though that I should clarify myself.

I would never suggest that the celebrant or the LEMs or anyone should 'fence' the table like they did in reformed churches back in the day. What I am talking about is preserving the traditional manner of entry into the Christian community, at least for adults:

Desire to enter -> Catechumenate/appropriate formation -> Baptism -> Communion

This has been the formula in all places throughout Christian history; the details have varied (in the early church, the catechumenate might last for years) but it has always been the same idea.

Again, I am not talking about keeping the 'unbaptized heathen' away from the altar rail at all costs; I am talking about holding to baptism as a prereq for communion.

As to children, I would go with the Orthodox practice; I generally view 'confirmation' as a sacrament searching for a theology.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

Receiving communion before receiving baptism, in most Christian traditions would be seen to be putting the cart before the horse. Some evangelical traditions practising an open communion policy state that, "All who love the Lord Jesus, are welcome to come to the Holy Table at the Lord's Supper to partake in the receiving of the sacrament".

In that case, one does not have to be baptised or made any declaration of Christian commitment in order to receive communion. Presumably, those who find themselves in that situation are desirous of being baptised and/or making an act of Christian commitment. It is a situation that might well come out in the wash as they say.

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

That was a memorable post, Beeswax Altar, thank you.

My beliefs exactly.

Holy Communion is the food of the Body of Christ, the Christian community.

As horrible as it sounds to some people, it is limited to the baptised, as voting is to citizens, or sex in marriages is limited to spouses.

Most churches in the Anglican Communion are already far more open than most other Christians.

It would be hard to open the doors wider.

I cannot believe offering communion to those who are not baptised would do any more than confuse people. Christianity is about committment to the Saviour and to his body the Church. Communion itself is about BEING that body and our Head feeding his body.

It is the ultimate insiders-only event in the world. But what joy awaits those who come inside!

The baptismal font stands at the door of the Church, one must pass by the font before approaching the altar.

All are welcome, please come for instruction! No one will turn you away!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

John Wesley stated that Communion was 'a converting ordinance'.

There's a church in San Francisco where an atheist/Marxist/feminist called Sara Miles walked in, off the street, probably to avoid the rain, and received. She was converted by the experience, has written about it and is a strong Christian in her community.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

My post crossed with that of Mama Thomas. The view I expressed above, is one that I don't share, but I was defining another code of practice and no more.

I largly agree with Beeswax Altar and Mama Thomas that it makes sense to go to communion after one has been baptised (and confirmed).

Mama Thomas, there is great symbolism about having the font placed just inside the church door to mark one's entry into the church. But that positioning in the church-building is not sacrosanct and may be impractical for baptismal rites before a large congregation. That is why many churches have the font at the front of the nave, in or near the sanctuary.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
John Wesley stated that Communion was 'a converting ordinance'.

Shoot, thanks. I knew I was taught something about that, but couldn't remember where in my ecclesiastical perambulations. Apparently, it was Methodist confirmation class.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There's a church in San Francisco where an atheist/Marxist/feminist called Sara Miles walked in, off the street, probably to avoid the rain, and received. She was converted by the experience, has written about it and is a strong Christian in her community.

Which I feel is a very strong argument for the practice. When others learn the church was St. Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church, though, they sometimes dismiss it. Which makes me want to throw her book in their general direction.

A great interview with her is available online for free here. But this is what I believe is an operative quote for this discussion:

quote:
I think the most important thing for me about St. Gregory's is the practice and the theology of open Communion, which says basically that the altar does not belong to the church. The altar is God's, and everybody is welcome. It is not up to the church to say, "You don't deserve Communion, because you're not baptized or you're gay or you're divorced or you're a child." The church doesn't own Communion. It's God's meal.

[ 15. September 2010, 16:20: Message edited by: Spiffy ]

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
John Wesley stated that Communion was 'a converting ordinance'.

There's a church in San Francisco where an atheist/Marxist/feminist called Sara Miles walked in, off the street, probably to avoid the rain, and received. She was converted by the experience, has written about it and is a strong Christian in her community.

I wonder if that's what Wesley meant by that phrase, though? The usual early Methodist method was Bible class and, having had your card marked as a regular attender, communion. Weekly, I believe, so important did they consider the Lord's Supper. Also, I'm guessing that very few people in Wesley's time would've been unbaptized, in the ordinary way of things.

So I'm inclined to think the Wesley's attitude towards offering communion willy-nilly to the unbaptized might have followed the more orthodox view. But I could be wrong.

My own view, as it happens is fairly orthodox. But I don't think I'd faint with shock if I realized I'd communicated an unbaptized person - as I must've done any number of times since ordination, as I don't quiz people who present themselves to receive!

I also know someone who was brought to Christ by receiving communion. I don't actually know if she was baptized; but undoubtedly it was a 'converting ordnance' in that circumstance.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
I think the most important thing for me about St. Gregory's is the practice and the theology of open Communion, which says basically that the altar does not belong to the church. The altar is God's, and everybody is welcome. It is not up to the church to say, "You don't deserve Communion, because you're not baptized or you're gay or you're divorced or you're a child." The church doesn't own Communion. It's God's meal.

I expect I'm doing injustice to the person who made this quote, but if we believe that the Church is the Body of Christ on earth, it's actually quite difficult to come to the conclusion that communion doesn't belong to the Church. It's the central communal sacrament/meal around which the Body of Christ, the Church, focuses; how it understands itself, feeds itself upon Christ, whose Body the Church is.

I think, however, it is perfectly justified to challenge the institutionalization of many processes pertaining to the Body of Christ, which may be more what the writer means, in this case. The Church should be careful, perhaps, not to submit itself to the institutionalization of itself to the extent of permitting itself no creative or radical reformation, as and when the Spirit moves.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

quote:
I also know someone who was brought to Christ by receiving communion. I don't actually know if she was baptized; but undoubtedly it was a 'converting ordnance' in that circumstance.

While I am not sure if its here or there, I would imagine that the reference to the Lord's Supper as a converting ordinance refers to the fact that, since conversion is not a one-time thing, it is the Eucharist that continually reconverts or regenerates the people who receive it. I find it hard to believe that Wesley would have been suggesting that offering communion to everyone and their dog, regardless of their baptismal status, was a good and profitable thing.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

In the United States, the United Methodist church has an explicit policy of inviting everyone present to partake.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I wonder if that's what Wesley meant by that phrase, though?

Good point. I looked into this and found:

It is not only for those who already believe and long to deepen their relationship with the Lord, but for those who truly want to believe, but seem to lack the grace to do so. I believe Wesley's view was biblically sound. http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/covenant/means.htm

BUT also:

The signs transmit the signified,

The grace is by the means applied.

Wesley went so far as to claim the Lord's Supper as a converting ordinance. He appealed to the experience of his converts: “Ye are witnesses. For many now present know, the very beginning of your conversion to God (perhaps in some, the first deep conviction) was wrought at the Lord's Supper.” Had not his own mother, after wandering in a “legal wilderness” most of her life, knelt at the Table, and

The Father there revealed His Son,
Him in the broken bread made known.

http://www.churchsociety.org/issues_new/history/wesley/iss_history_wesley_leatham-years-1.asp

John Wesley's mention of the sacrament as "a converting ordinance" is subject to misunderstanding by some United Methodists today. In Wesley's time and situation, he was addressing persons who, although baptized as infants and possessing some degree of faith, had not yet
experienced spiritual rebirth. In eighteenth century England, almost all persons were baptized in infancy. Therefore, the conversion Wesley
spoke of was a transformation of those already baptized."

http://www.jimlane.org/A-Response-to--This-Holy-Mystery--A-United-Methodist-Understanding-of-Holy-Communion-_19.htm

It should be noted that when people claim that Holy Communion is a converting ordinance they often believe that this idea derives, in the form in which they express it, from the teaching of John Wesley, i.e that it is a proclamation of the Gospel and can elicit a response. However, Wesley's use of the phrase 'a converting ordinance' denoted his belief that someone 'seeking salvation' might find it in Communion. Baptism was none the less for him the condition for presenting oneself at Holy Communion. http://www.methodist.org.uk/index.cfm?fuseaction=opentogod.content&cmid=356

So I was wrong - annoyingly since I like the open table idea.

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :

quote:
As to children, I would go with the Orthodox practice; I generally view 'confirmation' as a sacrament searching for a theology.

Chrismation is bound up with the same theological principles as baptism. One enters the community of faith through baptism and receives the seal of the holy spirit through Chrismation. Bishop Kallistos says the following of Chrismation

Through Chrismation every member of the Church becomes a prophet, and receives a share in the royal priesthood of Christ; all Christians alike, because they are chrismated, are called to act as conscious witnesses to the Truth. 'You have an anointing (chrisma) from the Holy One, and know all things

Chrismation is applied in the Orthodox Church immediately after baptism.
The theology underlying all of this is the ecclesiology of the church, which is all bound together. The Eucharist is the body of Christ which which is constituted visibly and tangibly in the temporal world in the church. The church is a unity of faith, joined together in the sacraments which are guarded by the charism of apostolic succession. The sacraments are linked to one another. Bapstim, Christmation and Confession are all linked to Communion; the last (Confession), so that we do not partake unworthily as is spoken about in 1 Corinthians. To partake in the Eucharist is to affirm belief in all of this and in the words of the creed. "We believe in one holy ..."

I don't want to start a debate, but I will say that when I became aware of open communion it was one of two points that convinced me that any semblance of catholic ecclesiology had been utterly abandoned. It is not a practice that can be viewed in isolation.

[ 15. September 2010, 18:00: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So I was wrong - annoyingly since I like the open table idea.

Me, too! 'Open table' to me says so much of what Jesus was about!

But I think I've come to the conclusion - at least theologically - that it's not a principle to be easily compromised. In practice, however - who knows?

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

When I was baptised (where and while I studies at uni) at St Andrews Baptist Church it was the evening, and after being baptised and getting dried and dressed again, that was when I was accepted for communion and membership. We also had a really nice tea and food time after the service.

And before that, when we belonged to Scots Kirk, I did my menbership training/studying with the minister and several others, all of us just about to be leaving school, at Kirk Wynd Parish Kirk and that was when we could come to communion, which only happened two times each year, and we had to bring the note given to us by the elder the week before communion Sunday. And we had to attend at least once in the two years, or we were likely to be taken off the membership list.

So, in neither church/denomination, we had to be baptised to get communion.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
When I was baptised (where and while I studies at uni) at St Andrews Baptist Church it was the evening, and after being baptised and getting dried and dressed again, that was when I was accepted for communion and membership. We also had a really nice tea and food time after the service.

And before that, when we belonged to Scots Kirk, I did my menbership training/studying with the minister and several others, all of us just about to be leaving school, at Kirk Wynd Parish Kirk and that was when we could come to communion, which only happened two times each year, and we had to bring the note given to us by the elder the week before communion Sunday. And we had to attend at least once in the two years, or we were likely to be taken off the membership list.

So, in neither church/denomination, we had to be baptised to get communion.

Well technically you should not have come into membership of the Church of Scotland unless you were baptised. Church membership is sometimes called confirmation because in you confirm the vows your parents made at your baptism. I know of someone similar age to you, who a CofS minister refused to marry because she was not baptised (mix of CofS and Salvation Army background). An individual who is not baptised should be baptised in the same service as they are confirmed in.

From the Church of Scotland's Website:

quote:

While infant baptism is the norm, the Church of Scotland also baptises many who were not baptised as infants. Someone seeking such believer's baptism (also referred to as adult baptism) should approach their local parish minister who will either give specific instruction or invite them to join in the communicants' class. They would then be baptised and confirmed in the same service and have their names added to the communion roll of the congregation.

What will have happened is what happened in England in my fathers case, and at least two others I know of, is that baptism is presumed because is was normative to have a child done and people forget a adult baptising personal history. With no checking some slipped through the net but does not make it official policy.

The Church of Scotland as has other churches in Scotland so far from permitting the unbaptised to come to communion has had the most closely guarded communion table of any tradition.

Jengie

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

I had as a baby been treated spiritually what the CofS and other churches, not the baptist ones, call "baptism", in Dundee in a CofS kirk, but which I call now "dedication", and so I was officially able to be a CofS member. It was after I went to uni, that I began to think and believe differently what was baptism.

[ 15. September 2010, 20:27: Message edited by: daisymay ]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I assume,however, that the "minister" with whom you did your training, thought that the 'dedication' counted as a Church of Scotland 'baptism'.Otherwise he might have asked you to consider baptism before letting you 'join the church' as they often say in Scotland.

Without 'baptism' with promises made either by your good self or members of your immediate family who loved you so much that they wished to incorporate you at an early age into Christ's church,it would be like 'joining the kirk 'without a membership card.

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

In my Anglican Church of Canada parish if 1 is baptized you can recive communion. Do they ask are you baptized ? No leave it to one sense of honor in re this matter.
Overall I aligne my point of view with that of Beeswax et al [Smile]

Posted by Wilfried (# 12277) on :

I suppose this is as good a time as any to come out as someone who took Communion for years before I was eventually baptized, which makes me kinda like Sarah Miles, but I didn't write a book about it.

I grew up in a thoroughly secular, areligious household where there was nary a hint of Jesus (except for Jesus Christ Superstar, which my parents liked, and was in fact how I learned the Gospel). I started in prep school, mostly because nobody told me not too. I started going to services at the school chapel on Sunday mornings (not required, very few students did). The church was officially "interdenominational," but "Episcopal style;" they used the BCP and the school minister was Episcopalian. After the main service, they celebrated the Eucharist in a back room, so went to that too. I don't know what sacramental theology they held, if any. I'm sure the minister could have guessed that I wasn't Christian, but he certainly never asked.

After that over the years, I found myself going to church, off and on, here and there, for some reason always Episcopalian, and if Communion was on offer I took it. By this point I had figured out that it was technically verboten, but it had become part of the church experience, so I kept on taking it. I wanted to go to church, and Communion was part of church, so I wanted that too. No one ever said boo to me. This went on for a couple of decades before I was eventually cajoled into a baptism class and found myself duly dunked and a card carrying Christian. I still can't explain it, but receiving the bread and the wine was part of my (long, drawn out) conversion experience. Somehow the liturgy (I didn't know the word) and the sacrament (only had the vaguest notion what that meant) drew me into the church.

Now that I am a card carrying Episcopalian, I find myself a bit torn. I know the rules, and the rationale behind them. I feel at least a little bit duty bound to follow the rules, and practicing open Communion technically violates the rubrics and the canons, so on that technical level, it makes me a little uncomfortable when people flout the rules. I have actually told a couple of non-Christian friends who've come with me to church, "Communion is for baptized people, so you're kinda not supposed to;" when they know that they're not interested anyway. Just this week I explained the protocol to a rabbinical student friend who came with me to a weeknight Mass, just to be sure there wasn't any confusion. But then given where I came from and how I got here, I can hardly insist on strict adherence to the rules. Whether breaking the rules is right or wrong, I know that in my case God worked on me through the breach.

The church where I was eventually baptized openly practices open Communion, which was relief, since I could go on receiving while taking the baptism class. It might have been a problem otherwise, because I might have had to admit that I had been breaking the rules; the priest had already seen me at the rail, and then would have seen me in the class. Every Sunday before the Eucharist they say something like, "Everyone is welcome to the Lord's table to receive Communion. We believe that sacraments are a gift from God, and not a possession of the Church to control or withhold. If the Spirit moves you to receive, let nothing hinder you. However, if you do receive, we hope you'll come back, so we can teach you our understanding of the meaning of the sacrament." To me, this makes about as much sense as the reasons for insisting that Communion is for the baptized only. I guess in the end I'd say that if the sacraments are a means of grace, whose to say that that God can't in some cases use the sacrament of the Eucharist before the sacrament of baptism to confer his grace, and in that case, who are we to get in the way?

Posted by BlueOpal (# 15895) on :

I have a question along a similar theme.

I was baptised Catholic as a child. I took my First Communion at seven, and was confirmed as a teenager (though in all honesty, I don't remember how much that was because I genuinely felt ready to confirm faith and how much it was just because that was what people my age in the parish were led to do. I don't really remember.)

Anyway, since then I went down the militant atheist route, then to agnostic indifference, then dabbled with Christianity, drifted back into atheism, back and forth and so on, and now I'm determined to keep myself on track and push onwards with my journey back to God.

BUT I'm disenchanted to say the least with Catholicism. I disagree with much of it. Some stuff makes me uneasy. I won't go into details, that's not what I'm here to ask. What I'm talking about is the fact that I will now take Communion anywhere except in a Catholic church.

Catholicism says only Catholics can receive in their churches, right? While other denominations just say you have to be baptised a Christian? Well I'm baptised a Catholic, but it means nothing to me. I haven't been to confession, I have plenty of hefty sins unabsolved by a priest (but, I believe, settled with Him upstairs) so by Catholic standards I shouldn't take Communion, baptised or not. Confession is one of the things I'm uncertain about with the denomination, so I will not be going to tell a priest my dirtiest darkest sins at any point. Therefore, Catholic doctrine says, I can't receive, despite being baptised...

Oh, it's all so confusing. Am I right to say that even though I personally think that as I'm baptised and am (at the moment) a believer in Christ, I should be able to receive. But I'm sort of avoiding offending their standards by not doing so.

Am I right to do that, or need I not worry?

(as an additional point, once I've secured myself in my faith a bit more over the next few months to a year, I plan to be rebaptised in a different denomination, this time a baptism I choose and believe in, in a denomination with which I'm entirely comfortable. Is that the right decision?)

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BlueOpal:
Oh, it's all so confusing. Am I right to say that even though I personally think that as I'm baptised and am (at the moment) a believer in Christ, I should be able to receive. But I'm sort of avoiding offending their standards by not doing so.

Am I right to do that, or need I not worry?

(as an additional point, once I've secured myself in my faith a bit more over the next few months to a year, I plan to be rebaptised in a different denomination, this time a baptism I choose and believe in, in a denomination with which I'm entirely comfortable. Is that the right decision?)

Well, all I can say is that when I returned to church later in life I refused to receive Communion for two years because I didn't believe in it. But then eventually I did (I was baptized as an infant).

So I'd add that if you don't feel you should receive communion in the Catholic church, then don't; follow your conscience on that.

I don't think I'd ever get rebaptized, though - my understanding and belief is that baptism is THE initiation into the Christian faith, and one is all that's required. But, perhaps your new denomination requires it for membership, so that's something only you can decide, really.

[ 15. September 2010, 21:50: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Didn't Wesley say the communion was a converting ordinance?

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

BlueOpal,
If you don't believe what the Catholic Church teaches, if you don't believe one needs to go to confession and be in a "state of grace" to receive, if you don't believe one needs to be in union with the local bishop who is in communion with the Pope, then don't receive.

If you want to talk with somebody about where you are spiritually right now, especially in regards to the Catholic Church, I'm sure your local priest wouldn't mind talking with you, wherever your current journey takes you.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

shamwari, shame on you!! [Razz]

Look a few posts further up, lazybones!

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Blue Opal:
(as an additional point, once I've secured myself in my faith a bit more over the next few months to a year, I plan to be rebaptised in a different denomination, this time a baptism I choose and believe in, in a denomination with which I'm entirely comfortable. Is that the right decision?)

Depends on what new denomination you join. If you join one that accepts believers baptism, they'll want you to be rebaptized. If you join one that practices infant baptism, not only will they not require you to be rebaptized, in most cases they will refuse to rebaptize you. You are not baptized into a particular denomination.

Posted by BlueOpal (# 15895) on :

With regards to the rebaptism thing; it's not just me trying to get out of Catholicism. My reasoning for wanting to be baptised again is that for the first time in my life I can truly say I WANT to grow in faith, I BELIEVE in God and in Jesus' sacrifice, and therefore baptism would serve the purpose I see it as meaning to serve; that is, showing one's entry into the Christian faith.

It would mean a lot to me. It's not something I feel needs to be done, but something I really want to do. My childhood baptism was done because my Mum and her family are Catholics. I want to, when I feel ready, affirm my own faith and in many ways my first real entry into Christianity, because this is the first time I've come to a real conviction, really believed, and truly wanted to be a part of the faith.

Make sense?

Maybe I won't, though. I'm not sure. But I know that Catholicism isn't for me, so I won't be going to those Masses very often (only when I'm not in Uni and decide to accompany my Mum)

Once I'm back in uni in two weeks, I'm going to end up spending the term doing a denomination tour of the city's churches, just trying things out, seeing which one feels right.

Sorry, I'm probably threadjacking a bit.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

Blue Opal,

That is all well and good. Really, it is; I am quite certain you are far from the only person who feels that way.

However, what Beeswax said is true: many church groups, esp. those for which infant baptism is the norm, would refuse to re-baptize you. Trust me, it is nothing personal. They will probably confirm you or perform some sort of rite of reception into the church. Not being re-baptized does not stop you from affirming your faith, nor does it stall your spiritual journey. You'll be in that church, same as anyone else. Like Beeswax said, you are not baptized into a particular denomination; you are baptized into Christ.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BlueOpal:
With regards to the rebaptism thing; it's not just me trying to get out of Catholicism. My reasoning for wanting to be baptised again is that for the first time in my life I can truly say I WANT to grow in faith, I BELIEVE in God and in Jesus' sacrifice, and therefore baptism would serve the purpose I see it as meaning to serve; that is, showing one's entry into the Christian faith.

BlueOpal, I struggled with similar feelings when I wandered myself into an Episcopal church on 1 Advent.

I struggled with it for a couple months. My breakthrough moment came during the Easter Vigil liturgy, which included The Renewal of Baptismal Vows. I stood in the midst of the people of God and spoke the words that my godparents spoke for me many, many years before, and it hit me that yes, this is what I believe and what I will do, with God's help.

If you haven't wandered yourself into an Episcopal/Anglican church, I'd ask the leader of your church if there was a way to renew your baptismal vows. My $0.02.

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :

quote:
If you join one that practices infant baptism, not only will they not require you to be rebaptized, in most cases they will refuse to rebaptize you.

All depending on the circumstances of the previous baptism and the strictness of ones ecclesiology. Conditional baptism has also been used when there is a certain level of doubt.

Baptism is a "one time" event though.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

quote:
All depending on the circumstances of the previous baptism and the strictness of ones ecclesiology. Conditional baptism has also been used when there is a certain level of doubt.

Baptism is a "one time" event though.

Quite so. The caveat is always 'assuming the baptism is an otherwise-valid trinitarian baptism'.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

BlueOpal, the feelings you express are exactly why the Lutheran church (and many others) has adult confirmation. It gives you the opportunity to publicly declare yourself, to opt in, as it were, in as much or as little elaboration and celebration as you and your new congregation want to give it. Since it usually involves making the baptismal vows again (this time with your own voice, if you had sponsors do it before), you get that aspect. The only thing that's missing is the water. And I'm afraid I agree with everybody else up the thread, baptism (a REAL baptism, with the words and the water) is a non-repeatable action. Like being born. You can be adopted into as many families as many times as you like, but there's only ever one birth into the world--or into the Church Universal. Even our Baptist friends would agree--they are of the opinion that what they are doing is the first and only baptism, and that we infant baptizers didn't actually manage to pull it off in the first place. [Two face]

[Deleted duplicate post.]

[ 16. September 2010, 01:49: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Hosting

Getting back to the original topic of the thread:

Closed communion -- one aspect of which is restricting communion to the baptized -- is a bit of an ecclesiantical Dead Horse (see guidelines for the Dead Horses board here). Thus I'm moving the thread to that location, where you are welcome to continue the conversation.

Mamacita, Eccles Host

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Didn't Wesley say the communion was a converting ordinance?

See my comments further up this page.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BlueOpal:
With regards to the rebaptism thing; it's not just me trying to get out of Catholicism. My reasoning for wanting to be baptised again is that for the first time in my life I can truly say I WANT to grow in faith, I BELIEVE in God and in Jesus' sacrifice, and therefore baptism would serve the purpose I see it as meaning to serve; that is, showing one's entry into the Christian faith.

It would mean a lot to me. It's not something I feel needs to be done, but something I really want to do. My childhood baptism was done because my Mum and her family are Catholics. I want to, when I feel ready, affirm my own faith and in many ways my first real entry into Christianity, because this is the first time I've come to a real conviction, really believed, and truly wanted to be a part of the faith.

Make sense?

Maybe I won't, though. I'm not sure. But I know that Catholicism isn't for me, so I won't be going to those Masses very often (only when I'm not in Uni and decide to accompany my Mum)

Once I'm back in uni in two weeks, I'm going to end up spending the term doing a denomination tour of the city's churches, just trying things out, seeing which one feels right.

Sorry, I'm probably threadjacking a bit.

I followed a similar course to you (although my family's Catholicism was much weaker - both my parents were atheists). I opted to be (re)baptised for the reasons you've given and have no regrets. Baptists are pretty much the only ones who will baptise you, although some evangelical Anglicans will perform a full immersion believer's baptism under the figleaf of re-affirming your baptismal vows. Baptist churches in the UK divide into roughly two groups - Baptist Union congregations, which tend to be open evangelical but can also be quite liberal, and independent Baptists, who tend to be very conservative. Independent charismatic churches are also usually 'baptist' on baptism. IMO at least some Baptist churches would be willing to baptise you without expecting you to join if you were happily settled in a non-baptist church. Good luck with the church hunt and apologies if I'm telling you lots of stuff you know already!

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

I didn't consider myself "re-babaptised" and obviously neither did the Baptist Church, but no doubt several other churches don't think it's correct to baptise someone who as a baby has been "baptised" (what many of us associate with "dedication" and so call it that).

And in a baptist church in England, communion was permitted to people who had not been baptised, particularly to youg ones. Later on, most of them got baptised and them became members of the church.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

Generally, I would count myself among the most liberal people I know. However, I can't agree to communion for the unbaptised. One is baptised into the body of Christ, and to me that is a huge part of the symbolism of the exercise: that God in Christ is feeding, in effect, his own body, and that we offer ourselves to feed and sustain each other. I simply don't see how someone who is not baptised can be part of this process.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

FooloftheShip,
What about the baptist belief that people must become Christians, be born-again, before they are allowed to get baptised? And because they are already christians before they actually get baptised, they may in varying baptist churches be given communion, as are people who have not been baptised and are still thinking about it, or not sure about it, or definitely anti getting baptised because they really do think they were baptised as babies and have that record...

[ 17. September 2010, 19:30: Message edited by: daisymay ]

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

Who attended at the Last Supper? Was it the Twelve + Jesus? Or were the 72 (Luke 10:1) or at least some of them included? Were they all baptised? Maybe we cannot know.

But I wonder if Jesus would have turned someone away if they'd showed up? This was a Passover meal right? I thought they left an empty chair for Elijah. I won't argue that Elijah would have gotten communion at the last supper if he'd showed up, but I do wonder about the taking of a general good - communion in Christ's Body Once Broken - and re-imaging it as on a continuum, with entry level Christianity involving Baptism and the advanced only getting communion. Kind of like taking First Aid level 1 before you can take level 2.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
FooloftheShip,
What about the baptist belief that people must become Christians, be born-again, before they are allowed to get baptised? And because they are already christians before they actually get baptised, they may in varying baptist churches be given communion, as are people who have not been baptised and are still thinking about it, or not sure about it, or definitely anti getting baptised because they really do think they were baptised as babies and have that record...

That's where confirmation comes in, for churches who baptise in infancy. Some such churches insist on confirmation before communion - I was confirmed before I took communion - but to me, baptism is the key. I'm a sacramentalist to that extent. Sacraments are in any case only an invitation to the Holy Spirit; trying to instruct the Spirit is not a good idea. I know this can be an argument against the insistence on baptism, but there we are. It's hard to be totally self-consistent on these things. In fact, I think I may have changed my mind, at least in part. If "all are welcome in this place", do we put up a barrier? Does conversion of the heart count?

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:

quote:
Originally posted by BlueOpal:
With regards to the rebaptism thing; it's not just me trying to get out of Catholicism. My reasoning for wanting to be baptised again is that for the first time in my life I can truly say I WANT to grow in faith, I BELIEVE in God and in Jesus' sacrifice, and therefore baptism would serve the purpose I see it as meaning to serve; that is, showing one's entry into the Christian faith.
BlueOpal, I struggled with similar feelings when I wandered myself into an Episcopal church on 1 Advent.

I struggled with it for a couple months. My breakthrough moment came during the Easter Vigil liturgy, which included The Renewal of Baptismal Vows. I stood in the midst of the people of God and spoke the words that my godparents spoke for me many, many years before, and it hit me that yes, this is what I believe and what I will do, with God's help.

If you haven't wandered yourself into an Episcopal/Anglican church, I'd ask the leader of your church if there was a way to renew your baptismal vows. My $0.02.

After a recent infant baptism in my (Canadian) Anglican parish, several long-time members said to the rector something like 'That was wonderful! I wish I could be baptized again.' In response, he is now planning a service of re-affirmation of baptismal vows. It's similar to the Easter Vigil re-affirmation, but in this service, each 'candidate' would individually re-affirm their vows before the Bishop.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
As to children, I would go with the Orthodox practice; I generally view 'confirmation' as a sacrament searching for a theology.

The Orthodox also have the sacrament of 'confirmation.' They just usually do it at the same time as baptism.

If one is a validly 'pre-baptized' convert, one receives only the sacrament of 'confirmation,' as is also the practice of the Roman Catholic Church and, I believe, the Anglican communion. (If one intends to become a formal member, AFAIK.)

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
FooloftheShip,
What about the baptist belief that people must become Christians, be born-again, before they are allowed to get baptised?

Yes, what of it? I can't seem to find a Church Father who held to that belief.

[ 19. September 2010, 13:52: Message edited by: k-mann ]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

And why should a sola Scriptura Baptist (assuming that's what Daisymay is) need a Church Father?

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

I'm also not a supporter of a completely open table but I think there are ways to keep the canon in place, yet be hospitable to seekers.

Perhaps we could take a lesson from the Orthodox and reserve consecrated bread and wine for the baptized, but offer blessed (but non-consecrated bread) to the unbaptized, and issue an invitation for all to come forward and phrase it in a way that doesn't stigmatize the unbaptized but turns it into a warm welcome.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And why should a sola Scriptura Baptist (assuming that's what Daisymay is) need a Church Father?

I've never heard a Baptist minister/pastor being called a "Father"! And there were always discussions at member meetings about specific people being baptised and membered, and always a couple were always sent to interview a person who was asking to be baptised or memberd in a specific Baptist church.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

Daisymay,

He was referring to the patristic witness. The 'Church Fathers' are the great theologians of the church, whose writings have shaped doctrine and practice for centuries. Their collective witness determines, at least in part, the collective tradition of the Christian church.

Of course, I can't see that this is terribly relevant, as Matt Black said, for a Baptist church.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

Spurgeon, John Knox (and others) are also great theologians, never called "Father".

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

Again, DM, we are not talking about "Father" as a term of address to either a theologian or a clergyman; 'Church Fathers' is simply a term used to denote the great Christian theologians of the early and middle Christian era. Two very different things; please take note.

To be fair, 'Church Fathers' is a predominantly Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox concept, without a ton of relevance in reformed/Baptist circles.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Again, DM, we are not talking about "Father" as a term of address to either a theologian or a clergyman; 'Church Fathers' is simply a term used to denote the great Christian theologians of the early and middle Christian era. Two very different things; please take note.

To be fair, 'Church Fathers' is a predominantly Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox concept, without a ton of relevance in reformed/Baptist circles.

'Reformed' is not synonymous with 'Baptist'. Calvin knew his Church Fathers inside out. Reformed churches understand themselves to be in continuity with the church through the ages, and while they do not see the the early church councils as binding in every aspect, they accord the Church Fathers every honour and respect. Their point was that they were reforming the church as was, not chucking everything out and starting anew.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

quote:
'Reformed' is not synonymous with 'Baptist'.

Fair enough. An oversight on my part.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And why should a sola Scriptura Baptist (assuming that's what Daisymay is) need a Church Father?
I've never heard a Baptist minister/pastor being called a "Father"! And there were always discussions at member meetings about specific people being baptised and membered, and always a couple were always sent to interview a person who was asking to be baptised or memberd in a specific Baptist church.

That wasn't my point: as Jon has said, I was more asking why a Baptist or anyone else who is sola Scriptura would care a tinker's cuss about what the Early Church Fathers may or may not have had to say about anything in particular and that therefore k-mann might well be attempting to engage in a dialogue of the deaf.

Posted by BalddudeCrompond (# 12152) on :

How many of the partakers of the Last Supper were baptized and official members of a church?

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
How many of the partakers of the Last Supper were baptized and official members of a church?

Not sure I see the relevance, tbh. It's the same problem, to my mind, as that of the catholic determination to teach the faith "as received from the apostles". We are where we are in time and space. We receive communion as part of a church; the disciples didn't.

Posted by BalddudeCrompond (# 12152) on :

Was not the Last Supper, the First Eucharist? (No theologian here)... My views have changed. I used to be in favor of communicating only baptized person, but as I read Scripture more and more I see that Jesus fed the multitudes and did not check papers at the door. I suppose my personal feelings have a lot to do with my viewpoint; as a former RC, I had to see my divorced/remarried mom denied Communion. It always hurt to see her and my dad staying behind in the pews while we received....To me, it's like going to a big celebration, having to bring a gift, having to get dressed up, salute the guest of honor and be told that you can't have any cake.....

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

We don't know if the disciples were baptized or not. However, they are told to baptize converts and the first thing Peter tells the people of Jerusalem is to repent and be baptized. It would seem odd for them to proclaim this if they were not themselves baptized.

The Eucharist is not just another meal. Jesus fed the multitudes but only 12 people joined him for the last supper. Would he have welcomed somebody who just dropped by? Seems to me, Jesus and the disciples wanted privacy for what they were doing.

As to hospitality, everybody should be welcomed at coffee hour. Anybody can invite visitors out to lunch. If it will make people feel better to offer blessed bread to visitors who don't come forward for communion, then do so.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

quote:
as a former RC, I had to see my divorced/remarried mom denied Communion. It always hurt to see her and my dad staying behind in the pews while we received....

Well, you are talking about something altogether different. We were talking about whether baptism should be a prerequisite to communion, being as it is the sacrament of entry into the Christian community. In the above you are discussing whether a person can, by reason of his or her "sins" be ineligible to receive communion in a church of which he or she is otherwise a member. These are two very different issues.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And why should a sola Scriptura Baptist (assuming that's what Daisymay is) need a Church Father?
I've never heard a Baptist minister/pastor being called a "Father"! And there were always discussions at member meetings about specific people being baptised and membered, and always a couple were always sent to interview a person who was asking to be baptised or memberd in a specific Baptist church.
That wasn't my point: as Jon has said, I was more asking why a Baptist or anyone else who is sola Scriptura would care a tinker's cuss about what the Early Church Fathers may or may not have had to say about anything in particular and that therefore k-mann might well be attempting to engage in a dialogue of the deaf.

Maybe be being asked these questions he can come to realize how utterly absurd and self-refuting the concept of sola Scriptura is.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Why not keep it "baptized only" and keep a pitcher of water handy?

I mean, really. If you really want to come to the Lord's Supper that badly, we'll stop the service and do you here and now. Or if that makes you embarrassed, say something to an usher before worship and we'll take you in the sacristy and get it done privately, while they're playing the prelude.

Seriously.

Now if there's someone who would REFUSE that, and nevertheless demanded to be given communion, I would have some serious concerns about their priorities and motivations. Something ain't right.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

quote:
Why not keep it "baptized only" and keep a pitcher of water handy?

Actually, we use the hose out back. Quicker that way.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

[Big Grin]

I'm sure we can find a horsepond somewhere close.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

To be fair, LC, the only problem I have with what you proposed is that I happen to think that baptism is not a spur of the moment, same day decision. Mind you, I'm not suggesting an early-church-style, year-long catechumenate, but if we believe that baptism is a serious thing that actually matters (ie, has objective spiritual consequences for the person receiving the sacrament) then I don't know if it is right to make it a same day thing.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I do understand that. Truthfully, I'd prefer to have a bit of prep before baptism too, at least in the case of adults. But we've got all kinds of New Testament examples where the prep (if any) took place the same day (night) as the baptism, and was necessarily short.

My real point was that anyone whose jets were so hot for communion that they couldn't wait another freakin' moment, ought not to have any objections to taking the same view of baptism. And with regards to THAT sacrament, at least, we have no Dire Warnings™ of what could happen to anyone who approaches it unprepared.

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:

quote:
Why not keep it "baptized only" and keep a pitcher of water handy?
Actually, we use the hose out back. Quicker that way.

Did that once, baptised a bride at her wedding after just finding out she wasn't. Married them, and gave them both communion. It happens.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

[Big Grin]

That just makes my day. (and is almost the way I got baptised, too--I was THIS close to being confirmed and communed before anybody thought to enquire about my baptism. You should have seen the pastor's face. [Devil]

).

Serves them right for not doing more outreach among the great unwashed, as it were.

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
... if we believe that baptism is a serious thing that actually matters... (has objective spiritual consequences for the person receiving the sacrament) then I don't know if it is right to make it a same day thing.

If it actually matters -- as I believe -- then, if the candidate wants it and also believes it has an effect on one's standing with / acceptance of the Lord -- it becomes an urgent thing, and should not be delayed.

No one who has been married very long will tell you they could ever have comprehended the fullness of what they were getting into, whether they were engaged and preparing for it 2 months or 2 years. They will look back years later and be amazed at all they have learned and grown through.

So IMO it is with that identification/cleansing/joining with the Lord in baptism. You cannot possibly comprehend every jot and tittle of what you're getting into, no matter how you study and prepare. You learn what you can, and if you desire it, it should happen.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I know of someone similar age to you, who a CofS minister refused to marry because she was not baptised (mix of CofS and Salvation Army background).
Jengie

I think that's disgraceful.

I am a Salvationist. We are permitted by TSA to receive communion at any church that will allow us to. I have received communion wearing my uniform from numerous churches and I believe it is the commitment to Christ that is the important thing, not whether yuou have had words said over you or some water spirinkled on you. Baptism does not make you a Christian.#

However, faith in Christ does - together with the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. These are the important 'qualifications' for receiving communion.

I wouldn't want to go to a church that restricted the grace of God to certain people. It doesn't sound like anything Jesus would do.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Well, we'll marry darn near anybody--they don't even have to be believers, though we do get into a spot of "why exactly do you want to marry in church" and "you do realize that you'll not be allowed to behave as if God weren't here, do you?"

But baptism doesn't come into it, because Lutherans consider marriage a natural ... rite? sacrament? ordinance? whatever, it's something God invented at the beginning of the world for everybody and his wife, and emphatically NOT confined to the Christian church. And we figure it's more our business to facilitate people keeping the sixth commandment than to make it more difficult for them than it has to be. Particularly when they've been together six years and have two children and another one on the way.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I know of someone similar age to you, who a CofS minister refused to marry because she was not baptised (mix of CofS and Salvation Army background).
Jengie
I think that's disgraceful.

I am a Salvationist. We are permitted by TSA to receive communion at any church that will allow us to. I have received communion wearing my uniform from numerous churches and I believe it is the commitment to Christ that is the important thing, not whether yuou have had words said over you or some water spirinkled on you. Baptism does not make you a Christian.#

Regardless of the merits of your view, the two halves just don't logically follow from one another. Whether you, as a fully-fledged TSA, are allowed to receive communion from any other church that will have you has absolutely no bearing on the question of whether an unbaptised person can receive communion (or any other rite) at a church.

Unless what you're trying to say that there are churches will have you as a fully-fledged TSA, even though TSAs don't get baptised??

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Unless what you're trying to say that there are churches will have you as a fully-fledged TSA, even though TSAs don't get baptised??

I think that would be it.

Personally, I think there's a difference between communing someone from a denomination with a different understanding of the symbolism of baptism (which doesn't involve water) and communing someone from a denomination that does baptism in the usual way, but who hasn't got round to it yet.

I think one can consistently treat those two situations differently.

[ 12. October 2010, 09:25: Message edited by: mdijon ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0