Solemn Rite or Happy Meal?

There's an interesting article by Doug LeBlanc in yesterday's Episcopal Life Online.

Doug is an Episcopalian who is also a delightfully conservative religious journalist.

I say 'delightfully' conservative because, while he holds to his conservative beliefs like a new Alpha convert holds to the words of Nicky Gumble, Doug is not obnoxious about what he believes about God and the Church and homosexuality and abortion and . . . well, let's just say he'd pass the litmus test any day of the week on any issue for being truly conservative.

And, and, and, he's tolerant. Indeed, we have worked together in a variety of settings and I have come to count him as a friend and a brother in Christ.

So, when he writes about controversial subjects, I listen. Carefully.

In this article, Doug is taking on eucharistic theology in light of the innovation of lay presidency in Australia and the increasing stance by many in TEC to have 'open communion.'

It's a fairly predictable argument from the conservative side of the aisle. Still, he raises some important points that simply can not be easily dismissed.

I think he's made a stretch here. I hear his argument from the fear-based evangelical 'the slippery slope' perspective of human behavior. You know, you make one concession, you put your big toe over the line, and before you know it, BAM, you've not only been cast into the 'outer darkness', but you've been banished there FOR EVER.

It's all black and white, right and wrong, good and evil - no shades of gray. At least, from my perspective of the evangelical position.

I think the two are very separate issues. But, what do you think? What do you think of 'open communion' and 'lay presidency'and is there a connection between the two?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

News Item, October 21: The Diocese of Sydney's General Synod has voted again to allow laity to preside at celebrations of Holy Communion and to allow deacons (both men and women) to preside as well.

My reaction, once news of the synod's decision began circulating in U.S.--based weblogs: Wake me when the argument is over.

I have exaggerated my lack of outrage, but not outrageously. My longtime friend and colleague Terry Mattingly grew up Southern Baptist, spent more than 10 years as an Episcopalian and then became Eastern Orthodox.

He enjoys telling the story of attending Myers Park Baptist Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, where robed choir members processed with reverence down the center aisle and some bowed before sitting in their pews.

Terry asked about the significance of the bowing, and the answer he heard was remarkable: That's what you're supposed to do. Despite its stained-glass windows and the liturgical calendar it observed, this church had no concept of a Communion host being the body of Christ, in some form, and therefore worthy of brief reverence by choir members.

From that experience, Terry concluded that if a Southern Baptist congregation had a higher-than-average interest in liturgical symbols, its members likely had little understanding of the doctrine behind the symbols.

I wonder if, for many Episcopalians, this could be an accurate summary of what we understand about Holy Communion.

Consider how many priests now announce, week after week, that because the Holy Table belongs to God and not to anyone else, all people -- regardless of whether they are baptized -- are welcome to partake. I note only in passing the chutzpah of presuming that God's will for the Holy Table was thwarted, rather than honored, as far back as the Didache.

Perhaps it fulfills the saying that misery loves company for me to feel relief that another portion of the Anglican Communion must contend with innovations at the Holy Table. That this innovation comes from Australia's most vigorously Reformed diocese only makes the humor richer.

I am no advocate of lay presidency. I believe that both it and the policy of communing the unbaptized reflect an incomplete theology of what occurs during Holy Communion. Both innovations make us the center of attention: In the United States, we say, "Come one, come all to receive, even if you don't understand or care about what you're receiving." In Sydney, should lay presidency ever gain the approval of Archbishop Peter Jensen, Australians will say, "Come one, come all (Anglicans)" to the role of presider.

One can make the case that neither practice is forbidden by Jesus' example at the Last Supper, though I think that resorting to an argument from silence is often an early indicator of mischief. Both sides also propose more than arguments from silence. Progressives appeal to Jesus' dining with prostitutes and tax collectors. Advocates of lay presidency now have published a book, The Lord's Supper in Human Hands, to make their best case at greater length.

I am confident the Anglican Communion will make it through these conflicts about the Lord's Supper. Meanwhile, I hope my fellow Episcopalians will meditate on two things: the meaning of our priests' prayers that the Holy Spirit will infuse bread and wine with the presence of Christ; and the key moment in our salvation, when Jesus "stretched out his arms upon the cross and offered himself, in obedience to [God's] will, a perfect sacrifice for the whole world."

To respond to this column email edge@episcopal-life.org.

-- Douglas LeBlanc is a member of St. Matthew's Episcopal Church in Richmond, Virginia.



http://www.episcopalchurch.org/80050_103579_ENG_HTM.htm