Discerning the Body

     I want to write a short post on this subject, because it has been rounding Episcopal social media as well as that of other denominations.  Within the last couple of weeks, the U.S. Conference of (Roman) Catholic Bishops had been working on a policy that would allow for the withholding of communion for politicians, particularly those who publicly support abortion.  They then backed off their position a few days ago.  I have many thoughts on this subject, but I also think it best to stay in my lane and not comment on the inner workings of another denomination.  My only comment on this is that I do find using the sacrament as a political bargaining chip to be hugely problematic.  I also understand that in the last couple of decades, opinions about this subject have shifted and it has become a polarizing issue.  
    The issue that I feel compelled to write on has been the reaction, particularly from Episcopalians, who have a much different policy on the sacrament.  For Episcopalians, this matter has reopened the subject of "Open Communion" in public debate, and to a lesser degree, the Disciplinary Rubrics (guidance on withholding communion of lay people as a disciplinary matter).  I think the Disciplinary Rubrics could be an important subject on their own, but the matter of open communion may be more pressing in the next few years.
    To begin, Anglicans, of which tradition the Episcopal Church is a part, have a very similar theology of the Eucharist to the Roman Catholics.  Like our Roman sisters and brothers, we believe in real presence in the elements during the consecration of the bread and wine.  However, we also have some distinctions from the Roman Communion.  (These distinctions also make me hesitate on commenting on their policies and practices)
     First of all, while we do believe in real presence, it is a bit less defined that the RC understanding.  Most Anglicans believe in one of two mechanisms for real presence: transubstantiation - a full conversion of the elements to the body and blood; or consubstantiation - where the bread and wine coexist in the elements alongside the body and blood.  I would venture to say our theology leans more toward transubstantiation, but most Episcopalians likely personally lean toward consubstantiation.  Either way, we generally believe the mystery of how is too great for the human mind to grasp, and leave it up to personal interpretation.
    The second difference is in custom.  Anglicans believe that all Christians baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity are welcome to receive communion with us.  For many decades, we referred to this as "Open Communion", however in the last decade that term has shifted.  I'll get to that below.
    A third difference between Anglicans and Roman Catholics has to do with both custom and theology.  This one is a bit less known.  As an Episcopal priest, I am not allowed to celebrate a private mass - that is, I am not allowed to enter a church alone and say the mass without the faithful (other people) present.  I am aware that some of my colleagues believe that they are joined by the communion of Saints, and that may be a debate for another day.  Nonetheless, the reasoning behind this is that for Anglicans, the Eucharist is primarily a communal action.  In I Corinthians 11:28-29, St. Paul says: "Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgement against themselves." For many Christians, this is understood as the real presence in the Eucharistic elements.  This is true for Anglicans as well.  However, it takes on a secondary meaning for us, and that is understanding the Body of Christ as the gathering of the faithful.  This is why it is necessary for us to gather as a Body (the assembly) to receive the Body (the host).  This is the mystic sweet communion of the Body of Christ with the Body of Christ.
    These last two differences, are what are at play for the debate at hand.  In recent years, there has been a shift in understanding "Open Communion" to incorporate not only those who are baptized, but all people, regardless of baptism.  I will just say from the outset, I do not believe we are to card at the door.  We do not need to disrupt our worship to ask someone's baptismal status, nor do I really think this is an issue, since I cannot imagine an Episcopal priest actually doing such a thing anyway.  I also have personally unwittingly given communion to non-Christians, only to discover later they were not baptized, and the sky did not fall in.
    The issue for me with this debate is that the Eucharist is particularly a Christian ritual.  It is understood as a mandate for those who follow Jesus Christ.  While no one can truly understand the gravitas of the sacrament, it is helpful (although not required, in say, the case of small children) to have a general working understanding of what it is we are doing.  
    Further, I want to get back to the idea of "discerning the Body" as community.  All of the sacraments are communal actions.  In every sacramental act, there is some nod to the people gathered agreeing to support or take part in the act.  When we are baptized, the faithful gathered take a vow to support us in our life in Christ.  This is a vow, taken on behalf of the whole Church - that gathering of all faithful followers of Christ in all time and place.  It means that when we enter the Church, through the sacrament of baptism, we are accepted as a member of the Body.  So that when we approach the table for the body and blood, we come, not as an individual, but as a member of that Body.  It strikes me that much of this debate is parallel to the notion of whether we can practice our faith without a community or not.  While individual practice is important, the core of our Christian faith is communal.
    The challenge here is that for people who practice another faith tradition or who have yet to be baptized.  I am going to state that it is important to understand that practicing another faith, or no faith, does not condemn one to hell.  This is not a matter of salvation or damnation.  However, when it comes to this particularly Christian ritual of communion, it is important to understand oneself as a part of the Body of Christ.  There is a line in the Baptismal Covenant that says: "Will you continue in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of the bread, and in the prayers?"  While most people are too young to have agreed to that line, the parents, sponsors and community accept that role on our behalf.  It is at this point, we are linked by solemn vow to the sacrament of communion.  
    In the end, I do not believe that faith and salvation are exclusively Christian.  Nor do I believe that we are to hoard the sacraments. However, I do believe that as St. Paul reminds us, "all things should be done decently and in order." (I Corinthians 14:40) When we gather at the table, we do so, not as individuals seeking out personal salvation, but as One in the Body of Christ.  It is that Body - the assembly, the Church - that we discern as we gather, and discern the Body - the real presence of Christ on the table.  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Culture of Safety

Original Sin in the Old Testament