Here in the Church of God we’re in a explosive situation over one of our ministers criticising another minister/church institution employee over his receiving communion at his wife’s Episcopal church. There are many issues surrounding this, but as someone who has been in both churches in my lifetime, there’s one thing that I’d like to focus on: the whole business of who gets to receive communion in both of these “traditions” (I’m not fond of that terminology, but I haven’t come up with a better one.)
Let’s start with the Episcopalians. The Protestant Episcopal Church I grew up in had what is normally termed a “closed” communion. It was restricted to those who had been confirmed in the Episcopal Church, which is one reason why I was confirmed at the appointed time. Since then things have gotten “loosier and goosier” (to borrow a term from the pile driving industry) and now confirmation is no longer a prerequisite to receive communion. We’ve heard about those who would admit the unbaptised to Holy Communion, and I’m sure this happens.
The Episcopalians, however, are not alone in loosiness or goosiness. I’ve been in the Church of God for two score now and have never heard anything about baptism (water or the Holy Spirit) being a prerequisite for taking communion. There is nothing in the teachings of the church; the only requirement is that the person doing so be a believer. (And baptism isn’t even a necessity for joining the church!)
Going back to the days of wine (along with harder stuff) and the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, before every communion we were told to admit our sins to God as their burden had become intolerable. After that, of course, we recited the Comfortable Words, which were very much that for me. Since that dreadful 1979 BCP was instituted, that confession has become softer (they should consider just reciting Jimmy Buffett.) One again the Church of God rises to the occasion. Since we have no regular rite for the Holy Communion, there is no necessity for any kind of proclamation for self-examination, that part is sometimes left out, which is a pity (see also 1 Cor. 11:28-30.)
So what are the takeaways from this? I have a few:
- The Church of God needs to define a few things about the Holy Communion, as it was instituted in the Last Supper along with foot washing. A regular rite wouldn’t hurt either; since we are in the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition and John Wesley didn’t have any problem with having a prayer book, we shouldn’t find it offensive. Leaving behind Bill Clinton’s Eucharistic Theology: It Depends on What ‘Is’ Is would also be helpful, although that’s not explicitly written into our teachings either.
- Personally I won’t receive communion in either an Episcopal church, an ACNA or a Continuing church (to say nothing of an RCC church, which has its own additional problems these days.) That’s because I have not been formally received (back) into any of these.
- The minister who complained about receiving Communion in the Episcopal Church did so because this church is a “gay-friendly church.” While I’m sure some Episcopalians would try to dodge this characterisation, during the last quarter century and more the actions of its prelates and the General Convention say otherwise.
Positive Infinity 