CWOB in E. Oregon

Time is short so I’ll just give a pointer to the Lead item:
Eastern Oregon proposes Communion without Baptism resolution

This topic will be is the next big bone of contention in the church.

More later…

17 Replies to “CWOB in E. Oregon”

  1. Derek,

    I have commented on this before, and did so very briefly on the Society of Catholic Priests FB thread. I recently have had the experience of welcoming a family to the parish from the UMC who have a non-baptized 13 year old boy. The family has a very mixed church background and there was no particular reason why the boy had not been baptized before. Since coming to All Saints’ he has been faithful at worship and Sunday School and comes to the altar rail for a blessing. He and I, along with his parents, have been discussing the possibility of baptism for about 6 months. Last week his mother and he came in and we had a good conversation about faith and about baptism and he is certainly ready to be baptized and will be during Easter season. He understands that this is his own choice to make God the center of his life (as much as any 13 year old can understand) and to be a disciple of Jesus.

    So, if he had been receiving Communion all along, there would have been far less reason for us to have what has turned out to be a very important pastoral and evangelical conversation. I had similar experiences last Pentecost with a 40 year old dad who finally decided to be baptized.

    You’ve written about this so well and clearly; thought I’d just add an “in the field” example.

  2. I’ve been taking part in the discussion throughout the evening on the Lead. I am amazed at the straw men that proponents of CWOB keep setting up – particularly that opposition to the practice has something to do with seeing the unbaptized as being unworthy and the baptized as worthy, and that opposing the practice must mean you’re somehow in favor of policing the Communion rail (“Baptismal certificate, please!”). As far as I can tell no opponent has suggested either thing, but proponents keep right on refuting them. I honestly can’t tell if they are simply horrible debaters or spectacularly dishonest. I’m also surprised that some proponents tend to take a couple of what seem, to me, to be very non-Anglucan approaches to the Eucharist: either it’s basically an agape-meal about sharing food and hospitality, cut off from most of the dominical or traditional meanings regarding the Eucharist (no hard sayings to deal with about body and blood) or it’s an almost magical rite that will transmit grace no matter what the intention, instruction, preparation, or attitude of the communicant might be. It’s quite disheartening to think about GC discussing this this go-round.

  3. Has there been any suggestion of a resolution providing for ordination without baptism? No? It would be funny to propose one, just to watch the pro-CWOB clergy have fits trying to protect their livelihoods.

  4. And it’s officially gotten too silly for me. Still, It did help me clarify my own thoughts for myself. I liked your comments, too.

  5. Hope you don’t mind me quoting you on the Lead thread. I thought it was a great post.

  6. You know, actually: I think this is a really excellent “teaching moment.” A discussion like this – as long as it keeps everybody listening and watching and contributing – will bring up literally hundreds of ideas, many of which may be completely new to people.

    Something very interesting and new might come of it all….

  7. Actually, I just read that any Catholic male – ordained or not – can be elected Pope.

    That’s pretty cool, if true….

  8. Thanks Alex – and likewise.

    It’s gotten rather too silly for even me by now, too. Evidently what the Episcopal Church is *really* being called to is some sort of Charismatic Bahaism. Or so I’m told.

  9. [Sarcasm] You know, Bill, I wish you’d stop being so exclusive with these labels; we believe something that’s so much more expansive–you shouldn’t try and shoe-horn us so tightly like that! [/sarcasm]

  10. Derek, if you’d been paying attention to the thread all the way to the end, you’d know that that’s “*Father* Bill” to you…

  11. Here’s what I think is going to happen at General Convention. There will be a change in wording in the Canon, from “No unbaptized person shall be eligible to receive Holy Communion in this church,” to “The Episcopal Church recognises as eligible to receive Holy Communion any baptized person who is a communicant of any Trinitarian Church.”

    That’s what the Scots do, according to this thread.

    We could have avoided all of this in the first place by going positive instead of negative…..

    ;-)

  12. (AND, we’d get the word “Trinitarian” into the discussion, too, which would be a total step in the right direction….)

  13. I’ve found a couple of comments on reactionary sites very interesting, namely their surprise that regulars at a “liberal” site like the Cafe would oppse the practice.

Comments are closed.